Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sectarianism

John Lyons: When he last met trade unions in Northern Ireland to discuss the implications of sectarianism for the peace process.

John Reid: The trade union movement in Northern Ireland has been at the forefront of the campaign against sectarianism, particularly in the workplace.
	I met a delegation from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 25 March 2002, and we discussed sectarianism among other subjects.

John Lyons: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. All across the House there is recognition of the sterling work of the trade unions in Northern Ireland, not only in fighting for certain issues in the workplace but in combating sectarianism. Will my right hon. Friend review how the trade unions in Northern Ireland can become more involved and included in the work of the broader civic Northern Ireland?

John Reid: Yes, indeed, I am happy to pay tribute to the trade unions. As part of the discussions on sectarianism that I have been having with a range of bodies, I have been meeting the trade unions and discussing with them what they can contribute. It is a particularly challenging problem in Northern Ireland because, unfortunately, we have recently seen an increase in attacks on bus drivers and essential emergency services. This reached a new low yesterday when a cortege and hearse in Londonderry were pelted with stones and paint-bombed. That is the lowest of the low—beneath contempt. Where are we when we cannot even treat the dead with dignity? I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that those who are laying their loved ones to rest should be afforded—if anyone should be—at least a dignified funeral at the culmination of their loved one's life.

David Trimble: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be happy to convey to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) the fact that trade unions—whose work in dealing with intimidation in the workplace I, too, applaud—are represented in the civic forum in Northern Ireland, which represents those elements of civic society not directly represented in the Assembly.
	I agree with the Secretary of State about the new low that has been reached in a number of recent incidents. Someone appears to have made a deliberate attempt in north Belfast to use a car as a lethal weapon to drive on to the pavement and run people down, simply because they were in a different area. Is that not symptomatic of the way in which relations in a number of areas have deteriorated; is that not inseparable from the recent activity of various paramilitary organisations; and is that not the problem that the Secretary of State should get a grip of?

John Reid: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. A report yesterday from the University of Ulster about the further polarisation of opinions made depressing reading. I have no doubt that sectarianism is at least part of the problem with which we are confronted. We have seen street violence where there has been some involvement by paramilitaries. That is part of the reason why there is a need to restore confidence in the peace process.
	We have a challenging and difficult weekend ahead. I appeal to anyone of any influence and authority to do all they can to make sure that we come out of this weekend without the blight of the violence that has too often scarred Northern Ireland in the past. In the longer term, we will have to take steps to ensure that everyone recognises that there is no halfway house, no tolerable level of violence in Northern Ireland. I will certainly do all I can in that respect, and so, I hope, will right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Harry Barnes: Are not trade unions in Northern Ireland to be complimented not only on their formal campaigns against sectarianism in the workplace but on their day-to-day activities, in which Catholic and Protestant workers are drawn together in seeking decent wages and conditions? Some of us are of the opinion that membership of the Labour party should be permitted so that that such activity can be continued in those areas.

John Reid: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I know that that view is shared by many in the Labour party. Notwithstanding the fact that the Labour party is not at present organised in Northern Ireland, I hope he would accept that many of the measures that the Labour Government have introduced—the legal right to membership of trade unions, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the extra expenditure provided to the Northern Ireland Assembly for quality public services—have an impact on the social and economic environment of many areas in Northern Ireland.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it behoves all of us to address the underlying social problems in many of those areas. Unfortunately, many of the areas in which there is continual violence are precisely those with the worst social deprivation. One of the elements that we cannot forget is the practical application of policies on the ground to create a better economic and social environment for people in Northern Ireland, who deserve just as much opportunity and just as much chance to advance their families as people in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Gregory Campbell: Given the Secretary of State's comments about the report released yesterday by the University of Ulster, which indicated the increasing sectarianism and increasing polarisation in Northern Ireland, allied with the recent police report which indicated that community relations are at an all-time low and that violence has been at an all-time high in the past eight years, what plans has he to put in place a political process in Northern Ireland that has the possibility of attracting Unionist as well as nationalist support?

John Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a political process and, indeed, a wider peace process under way in Northern Ireland that has received far more backing than any alternative that I have ever heard of. If he knows of an alternative that he thinks can command the support that the present process commanded in referendums north and south of the border, I would be glad to hear of it, but I have not so far heard of it from him or his colleagues. Surely part of combating sectarianism and polarised attitudes is the capacity of all politicians from all parties and all walks of life to reach out beyond their own community to try to understand the position adopted by the other community in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman attempts to do that just as much as I do.

Quentin Davies: I strongly agree with the Secretary of State's comments about the incident in Londonderry. It is particularly disappointing that it should happen in Derry, where I hope to be on Monday, because that city has had a very good record during the past few months. I also thoroughly endorse his appeal for forbearance and for everyone to use their influence to try to avoid violence next weekend, during coming weekends and, of course, beyond then.
	As for reviving the peace process and restoring momentum, the Taoiseach, speaking in the Dail on 17 April, spoke of his determination—I use his word—that decommissioning should be completed in advance of the May Assembly elections next year. If Bertie Ahern can say that, and if he can set out a maximal time scale in which that must happen, why cannot, or why will not, the British Government say the same thing?

John Reid: Because the Taoiseach did not say that; he said that he expected that we could make rapid progress towards the culmination of decommissioning before May of next year. I would certainly hope that that is the position, and the Taoiseach has made his views known. There is no difference on this issue between the Irish and the British Governments. We have continually made it plain that the process has to proceed to the eventual disbandment of all paramilitaries. We want that to happen as soon as possible. We also make it absolutely plain that, if anyone is under any illusion that there is a halfway house that can comfortably accommodate successful political intervention as well as the maintenance of a high level of paramilitary activity, we have to get rid of that illusion.

Quentin Davies: I am afraid that we have another example of self-delusion by the British Government. The Taoiseach did say that; I used the quotation correctly. I shall now hand the right hon. Gentleman the document which quotes from the Dail record of 17 April. The Taoiseach did use the word "determination". He spoke of his
	"determination that this will not drift on into election time in the North next year."
	In another words, he suggests that it will be over by May next year. Those are the facts, and I am sorry that the Secretary of State is so poorly advised that he did not know what the Taoiseach said.
	Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman another question on which he has had no less than four months to try to make up his mind. On 9 March, the First Minister called for a border poll or referendum on the future status of Northern Ireland at the same time as the Assembly elections next year. What is the Secretary of State's response to that proposal?

John Reid: You won't mind, Mr. Speaker, if I tidy up the Desk.
	My response to the second point, which I have made public on several occasions—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to read my response—is that I will consider that.

Quentin Davies: After four months!

John Reid: I am afraid that we are about 10 months away from the next election. The hon. Gentleman is keen on deadlines, and he is now ascribing the deadlines to the Taoiseach, whom—with great respect to him—I meet occasionally, and I am familiar with what he says publicly and privately. We are, of course, determined that, as far as is humanly possible, we get advances on decommissioning and on demilitarisation of paramilitary organisations. The whole House wishes to see that achieved. It is something that we have been trying to achieve in Northern Ireland since the origins of the state. It is easy to make trite points to the effect that it should be finished by next week or the following week.
	All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that there are no illusions in the Government or in the House that, for any sustainable period, we can tolerate indefinitely the level of paramilitary activity, including targeting and attempts to acquire weaponry, which appears to have been going on. I cannot make that plainer. I am determined, as are the whole Government, to try to get full decommissioning of paramilitary apparatus in the shortest possible time. There is no difference on that between us and the Irish Government, and, no doubt, no difference between my wishes and those of the hon. Gentleman on the matter.

Smuggling

Neil Turner: If he will make a statement on progress made in tackling smuggling in Northern Ireland.

Tom Harris: What progress the Government have made in combating organised crime in Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy: This year—for the first time in five years—legal deliveries of oil products in Northern Ireland have risen, which, in large part, is thanks to the successful disruption of fuel smuggling rings. Since April last year, Customs has seized more than 63 million smuggled cigarettes in Northern Ireland. Clearly, there is much more to do, as the Select Committee report has shown, but I congratulate my partners engaged in the organised crime taskforce on their efforts and their success to date.

Neil Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I am sure that we are all gratified by the progress that is being made. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in the Northern Ireland context is that much of the smuggling contributes to the funds of paramilitary organisations on both sides of the sectarian divide? Is she satisfied that the legal process in Northern Ireland gives proper recognition to that when it takes account of the people who carry out that smuggling?

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The organised crime taskforce was established because we recognise the links that exist between those engaged in organised crime and paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Of the more than 70 different organised crime networks, we acknowledge that probably half have links to paramilitaries. That is precisely the reason why, through the organised crime taskforce, we have adopted a multi-agency approach to tackling anyone engaged in organised crime. By doing so, we know that we will catch in the net those who would use the proceeds of that activity for terrorist purposes. We find it easier to bring those individuals to justice through the operations of the organised crime taskforce. The effect is the same.

Tom Harris: Would my hon. Friend agree that, for many terrorists, the accumulation of personal wealth comes before the political aims of a united Ireland or of maintenance of the union? Will she reassure the House that the Proceeds of Crime Bill will be used with enthusiasm and vigour to confiscate the property of gangsters who, even now, are buying up Southfork-style homes in Northern Ireland? Some are even applying for planning permission for swimming pools next door, without there being any evidence that they have the legitimate income to do so.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right. Later this year, the Assets Recovery Agency, a statutory body, will be an important extra weapon in the armoury that we will be able to deploy against organised criminals. As he rightly points out, to the great irritation of the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland, these criminals flaunt in the face of everyone else the assets and wealth that they have gained through their activities.

Lembit �pik: The Government lose about 400 million a year as a result of petrol and diesel smuggling across the border. What do they intend to do to enforce law-abiding practice, and is the Minister willing to accept representations from those who represent the law-abiding people who sell fuel in Northern Ireland? They are absolutely desperate for support in terms of law enforcement in the Province.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is right. In the United Kingdom context, the problem of fuel smuggling and laundering is unique to Northern Ireland because of the long land border and the problem of policing areas such as South Armagh. Many resources are being deployed to tackle the problem, and there have been many successes, including recent successes in which significant smuggling and fuel laundering plans and networks have been disrupted. I commend the work of Customs and Excise officers, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the other agencies who work under the umbrella of the organised crime taskforce. They are having a real impactso much so that, as I said earlier, we are beginning to see an increase in the amount of legal fuel being delivered to the Province.

John Taylor: Will the Minister comment on the difference in fuel duties north and south of the border in Ireland and on the impact that the fuel duty differential has on the proprietors of filling stations in Northern Ireland?

Jane Kennedy: There is no doubt that there is an impact. The fuel price differential is one of the factors that encourages those who would engage in criminal activity to smuggle fuel. However, those individuals would smuggle something else or engage in another form of criminal activity in other circumstances. The tax differential is a factor, but not the only one. The Government need to bring together all the law enforcement agencies and make sure that their policies, procedures and energies are directed towards tackling the individuals engaged in such activities and towards disrupting and interrupting whatever criminal activity they carry out. That is the taskforce's focus, and that is why we are having the success that we are.

John Hume: Given that the petrol industry is the biggest cross-border industry, will the Minister and the Secretary of State strongly support the proposals that I have put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to save the petrol industry? The tax on fuel has closed petrol stations in Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Newry and Armagh, and instead of bringing the Government extra money, the tax has lost them 400 million a year because fuel is being bought on the other side of the border. Will the Minister therefore ask the Chancellor to act strongly on my proposals to restore the petrol industry in the border counties of Northern Ireland? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, may I remind hon. Members that it is only courtesy to remain quiet during Question Time?

Jane Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tax and taxation policy are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We have regular discussions and constantly monitor the situation, particularly the impact that the duty has on legitimate businesses. Indeed, I have met representatives of the fuel retail industry in Northern Ireland. Tax evasion is not the only issue; many other factors are involved. Criminals are taking through the Irish countrysideboth north and south of the borderdangerous vehicles containing huge amounts of fuel in very risky conditions. We should oppose such practice, and the Government and every law enforcement agency should work with the utmost vigour to stop the smuggling of fuel and other commodities in that way.
	Again, we return to the link between organised crime and paramilitaries and to the need for the law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate their efforts to beat these criminals and to achieve the success that they are achieving in the organised crime taskforce. It is a long haul, but we will get to the end of the road.

Voluntary Bodies (Grants)

Norman Lamb: What sums have been earmarked by his Department for grants to voluntary bodies in 200203.

Jane Kennedy: In Northern Ireland there are an estimated 5,000 voluntary and community groups. Some 200 million of public money is invested each year in grants to these bodies, which includes European funding. For this financial year, the Northern Ireland Office has earmarked more than 1 million for Victim Support Northern Ireland, 400,000 for the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and nearly 300,000 for Extern, which focuses its work on young offenders.

Norman Lamb: One of the great values of the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland is that it is one way of keeping the lines of communication open between the communities. Given the importance of the voluntary sector to the peace process, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of the sector to discuss their role fully?

Jane Kennedy: I, or perhaps more appropriately my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, will be happy to meet representatives of voluntary organisations. Such meetings have taken place and I am sure that a request will be received sympathetically.

Lady Hermon: What aid have the Government given to women's voluntary organisations such as the Women's Support Network, which does such great work in both communities, especially among working-class women in Belfast?

Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of women's organisations as recently as, I think, the night before last. Representations are received regularly. I cannot give the hon. Lady the exact figures, but I undertake to get those to her in the next few days.

Security Situation

Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

John Reid: There are significant residual problems of violence in terms of paramilitarism in Northern Ireland and we will continue to work to ensure that these are eliminated. We have, however, come a long way in counteracting violence and we maintain a security presence commensurate with the level of threat.

Stephen O'Brien: While I recognise the depressing and deteriorating level of violence in Northern Ireland, as shown in the answers given by the Secretary of State this afternoon, does he agree that the best way to demonstrate his and the Government's good faith and belief that no violence will be tolerated in Northern Ireland is for him and the Prime Minister to rule out once and for ever an amnesty for Northern Ireland paramilitaries on the run?

John Reid: We said publicly at Weston Park that there is an issue to resolve. We are intent on doing that, but we have not decided how to resolve it. As far as the general situation is concerned, there is no doubt that violence is intolerable, and we have made it plain that there is no acceptable level of violence in a modern democratic society. We will continue to make that plain, but no one should forget just how far we have come in the past 10 years. There have been enormous improvements in the economy, in the standard of living, and in security in Northern Ireland in terms of the number of people maimed, injured and murdered. That is not to say that we are the least bit complacent. There is a very long way to go.

Crispin Blunt: Following talks at Hillsborough last week, the Prime Minister undertook to introduce proposals to sustain the peace process before the House rises on 24 July. Will the Secretary of State, with the Prime Minister sitting alongside him, confirm that those will be announced in an oral statement to the House?

John Reid: We will certainly consider that and say what we have to say before the House rises.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State said that there is a residual security problem, yet the number of regular police officers with the Police Service of Northern Ireland has gone down to 6,952, several hundred below the number recommended by Chris Patten for normal circumstances. Will the Secretary of State now give a commitment to the retention of the full-time police reserves for the foreseeable future, because it is clear that they are indispensable?

John Reid: First, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect; Patten envisaged that number not in normal circumstances, but in more benign circumstances than we have at present. I agree that we are below the level that we should have by several hundred, as he pointed out, which is precisely why we are recruiting about 50 per cent. more a year than was envisaged in the Patten proposals.
	On the full-time reserves, I had a meeting on the matteryet another meetingwith the Police Federation yesterday. I am well aware of the valuable role played by the reserves in the present situation and historically, and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to them. However, the new policing board is looking at human resources, the manpower and womanpower element, and I would not want to pre-empt any decision that it may make. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will take into consideration the facts that he enumerated when it is looking at the full-time reserves.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Fiona Mactaggart: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 July.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Prime Minister aware that the lack of affordable housing in the south-east is not only causing us difficulties in delivering our public service commitments but causing despair to decent families? Will he use the comprehensive spending review to increase the supply of affordable housing in London and the south-east?

Tony Blair: There is no doubt that that is a serious issue. We have to ensure that we retain the green belt, and since we came to office some 30,000 hectares have been added to it. We must retain the existing 60:40 split between brownfield and greenfield developments, which we increased. We also have to make sure that there is more affordable housing in London and the south-east. That is one of the issues that the comprehensive spending review will address on Monday, and that is permissible only because of the extra investment that we are putting into our public services. As has been made clear, most recently yesterday, that investment is opposed by the Conservative party.

Iain Duncan Smith: Why should anyone now have confidence in the Government's new drugs policy when the Prime Minister's own drugs tsar has resigned, saying that it is all wrong?

Tony Blair: Perhaps for this reason: the change proposed by the Home Secretary, which he will give details of later, is supported by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which includes many senior police officers, by the Home Affairs Committee, which includes Conservative MPs, by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is the association of chief constables, and by the Metropolitan police. It is clear that there will be differences of opinion on all sides, and it would be absurd to say that everybody is of the same view. If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the arguments, he would find that they are supported by all the people whom I have just listed.

Iain Duncan Smith: I notice that the Prime Minister failed to say why Keith Hellawell, his drugs tsar, who has now resigned, said that the policy was wrong. It is worth reminding everyone that the Prime Minister said of Keith Hellawell, believing that he was a very good man, that he had
	a formidable record of tackling drugs.
	When Mr. Hellawell resigned today he said something very important. He said that the change is
	a softening of the law and sending the wrong message.
	Will the Prime Minister answer this very simple question? When the public have to choose between the Home Secretary and the Government's drugs tsar, who does he think they ought to choose?

Tony Blair: Keith Hellawell's work on issues such as drugs education and spending on treatment, which has doubled in recent years, has been extremely important. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a question of preferring Keith Hellawell's views to those of the Home Secretary, but my point is that one could ask whether it is a question of preferring Keith Hellawell's views to those of the Association of Chief Police Officers or the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which are experts in this field.
	I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we have a sensible argument about the matter. There are differences of view between people in the police service. There are differences of view locally, in areas such as Lambeth, as the right hon. Gentleman discovered for himself yesterday. There are also differences of view within the political parties. There will be some on the Government Benches who disagree with the change of policy, and some on the Opposition Benches who disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's position. I suggest that we debate the policy itself, rather than simply scoring points.

Iain Duncan Smith: I could not agree with the Prime Minister more about the need to have a proper debate, but we can hardly have a proper debate when the Home Secretary, without disclosing any evidence whatever, comes to the House and tells us that the law is to be changed. Worse than that, the Prime Minister knows that his Home Secretary bases that change on the Lambeth experiment. If the Prime Minister listened to the radio today, he will know that people who work on the Stockwell Park estate say:
	Our children are being told that it is OK to get stoned because nobody has the right to challenge you on this.
	If the Prime Minister wants that debate, perhaps he can answer this question: if he were the parent of a 16-year-old living on that estate, would he want that kind of message going out to children there?

Tony Blair: In relation to Lambeth, as I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago, there will be differences of opinion. I think that he found that himself. The independent Police Foundation poll found most people in Lambeth in favour, but of course there will be people against the change.
	Since the Lambeth experiment started, there have been more arrests, for example, for class A drug dealing. Street crime has fallen since the experiment began. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Home Secretary presents the proposals without any consultation at all, let me repeat that he asked for advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The council has given him the advice, and he has decided to take it. It is therefore absurd to say that the Home Secretary is taking this step without any support whatever.
	Let me make it clear that, under the proposals, the possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence; dealing remains a criminal offence, with the full weight of the law; and the power to arrest remains. However, where the police think it right, reclassification allows them to focus on hard drug dealing and drug dealing of any description, including of cannabis. That is why the proposals are supported by the chief police officers and the Metropolitan police.

Tom Levitt: Last week the Prime Minister outlined the results of the G8 summit in Canada, which included a substantial initiative to remove weapons of mass destructionchemical and otherwisefrom the face of the globe. Can my right hon. Friend outline to the House what the British contribution to that most worthwhile and essential initiative will be?

Tony Blair: Very roughly, we will be allocating about $750 million to that programme over the next 10 years. We are currently allocating about $51 million to it. That allows us to clean up facilitiesnuclear facilities, or chemical or biological weapons facilities. The important point is not merely the environmental benefits, but stopping such weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong, and possibly terrorist, hands. It is an important programme, and I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

Charles Kennedy: Applications this year from Scottish students to attend university are up by 5.5 per cent. The equivalent increase in applications from students in England is up by only 0.5 per cent. How does the Prime Minister explain that difference?

Tony Blair: In fact, since we introduced student fees, applications are significantly up, by more than 0.5 per cent. Of course the right hon. Gentleman can argue that we could provide tuition free, but he knows that under the Scottish experiment, people do pay at the endindeed, everyone pays.

Charles Kennedy: Not only have tuition fees been abolished in the Scottish context but, in addition, grants have been reintroduced for students from poorer backgrounds. In England, students face the prospect of ever-rising levels of debt. Will the Prime Minister deny this week's reports that, in the light of that evidence, the Government are considering increasing the level of fees that some students in England will have to pay? Given the evidence available, such a policy would be totally unacceptable.

Tony Blair: First, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues said that numbers of applications for universities in England and Wales would fall as result of tuition fees, but they have notthey have risen. Secondly, let me point out to him that we are putting more money into universities, but it is important to recognise that we will never be able to go back to the old grant systemnot with the numbers of people who are going through universities. Moreover, he is wrong to say that all people from poorer backgrounds pay tuition feesmore than 40 per cent. of them are exempt from tuition fees.

Irene Adams: Given that the air travel industry throughout the world suffered a great loss of business after 11 September last year, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the management and staff at Glasgow airport in my constituency, where business has increased by 5.7 per cent. in that period? Will he thank them for their hard work and investment and for holding their nerve during that time?

Tony Blair: That is a tough one, but I am going to answer it. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says and congratulate the staff at Glasgow airport on the excellent service that they provide.

Michael Jack: The Prime Minister will no doubt recall the statement made in November 1998 by Lord Robertson, who committed the Government to the purchase of 232 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft. May I invite the Prime Minister to tell the House that there is no truth in today's press reports that the Government are to renege on that commitment, and that they will purchase all 232 Eurofighter aircraft?

Tony Blair: There is no change in our commitment to the Eurofighter.

Ann McKechin: Last month, the Scottish Council Foundation issued a report showing that if Glasgow is to reach the Scottish average for the percentage of its population in employment, an additional 40,000 jobs are required to be created in the city. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, the Government will place continued priority on reaching full employment for all, especially in areas of special need such as Glasgow?

Tony Blair: Obviously, there are still pockets of very high unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency and in others, and we will continue to address them in the comprehensive spending review and elsewhere. However, I think she will agree that the measures that have produced one and a quarter million extra jobs in the British economy have been achieved through a combination of low interest rates, low inflation and the new deal for the long-term unemployed, which has given hundreds of thousands of people the chance to get decent work for the first time in their lives. Again I point out that the new deal was of course opposed by the Conservative party.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my constituents in Shetland, who succeeded in raising more than 20,000 in six weeks for the purchase, operation and training of a drugs detector sniffer dog, a resource that is now much appreciated by police on the islands who are combating a growing hard drugs problem? Can I ask him to intervene with the senior management of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, who have demonstrated a very poor attitude towards that community initiative, refused to allow local officers to use it, and insisted that our ports in Shetland can be covered by dogs based in Manchester?

Tony Blair: I am happy to congratulate the hon. Gentleman's constituents on what they have done. As for the second part of his question, if he will forgive me I do not know the details of the matter, so I shall have to write to him about it.

Derek Wyatt: This morning, ASW, which has steel mills in Cardiff and in Sheerness in my constituency, went into receivership. President Bush's steel tariff proposals may have been the last straw for UK banks in respect of our overdraft facility for ASW. Does the Prime Minister think that the World Trade Organisation has the systems in place to react more speedilywithin days, rather than monthson this issue, because that announcement has had a profound and devastating impact on my community today?

Tony Blair: Let me first express my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituents. We greatly regret that ASW Holdings plc has applied for receivership. As my hon. Friend knows, meetings took place with him, Ministers, the company and others to try to avoid the situation. Unfortunately, that did not happen but we shall do everything possible to help those employed by the company.
	We have made clear our reasons for disagreeing with the decision made by the United States, and I hope that the WTO rules against it. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to speed up the processes; that can be considered in the context of the negotiations that will continue later this year. However, even in the light of the exclusions for some of our companies, the decision is regrettable. I do not believe that it is in the interests of people here or of the US steel industry.

Iain Duncan Smith: Last week, the Prime Minister told the House that new restrictions on care homes
	do not come into effect until 2007.
	Of the 246 new rules that the Government are imposing, how many will take effect by 2007?

Tony Blair: From memory, I said that provisions for matters such as widening rooms and bathing would take effect in 2007, and that those were the regulations about which people were complaining. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's comments. On our information, my remarks last week were accurate.
	The main issue is care home fees. Again, I point out that we are increasing social services spending by 6 per cent. in real terms. Some of that money will go to care homes, yet the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to all that spending.

Iain Duncan Smith: I know that the Pope is meant to be infallible, but I did not realise that that applied to the Prime Minister. He said of the regulations that they
	do not come into effect until 2007.[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 221.] The answer to the question that he did not want to answer is that only four provisions do not come into effect until 2007. Almost all the otherssome 240came into effect on 1 April this year. No wonder care homes are closing: instead of removing red tape, the Prime Minister spins his way out of doing that every time.
	Now that we know there are fewer care homes, perhaps the Prime Minister would like to answer another question. Since he came to power, how many more elderly people are receiving care in their own homes?

Tony Blair: First, I said that the provisions that related to matters about which people were complaining, such as widening rooms, would not take effect until 2007. That is my understanding.
	Also on care homes, I speak again from memory, I believe that around 40,000 extra people are receiving care in their homes. It is therefore true that there has been a net loss of some 17,000 care beds and that the number of people who receive care in their homes has increased by 43,000.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister should ensure that he surrounds himself with friends before taking people's advice. The number of people who receive care at home has fallen by 80,000 since he took office. If elderly people cannot get places in care homes and they are not being looked after at home, does he agree that the message from the Government is, Fend for yourself?

Tony Blair: No, I do not accept that. I am afraid that we disagree about the figures. However, it is obvious that if people need more care, whether in care homes or in their own homes, we need to invest in provision for that. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor committed themselves to opposing the extra money for investment in health and education. The right hon. Gentleman started by believing that he would go for compassionate Conservatism, but he has reverted to the proposals for cutsprecisely the same position adopted by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament. Indeed, after their public spending announcements yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman must be the only known disciple of Hagueism.

Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Stockton's drugs action team? It has more than 800 young people in treatment, 500 of whom are testing clean and 200 of whom are testing clean permanently. However, we have a problem with chaotic drug userspeople who are spending more than 45 a day by stealing from anybody. Those people are outside the loop. Does he think that it is time we gave serious consideration to allowing supervised prescriptions of heroin so that we can break the link with the drug dealers and also get those young people into a system of support?

Tony Blair: I hear what my hon. Friend says. The most important thing is to ensure that persistent drug abusers are getting treatment. That is precisely why we have radically increased provision. What is happening in her constituency is happening in other constituencies too. Indeed, we have a target to increase dramatically the number of drug users who are receiving treatment in the next few years. I also believe, however, that drug treatment and testing orders are a further important innovation. In the areas where they have been pilotedmore than 6,000 have been grantedthey mean that people who may go to prison, and are criminals, are faced with a choice: they may either have drug treatment or they will go to prison.
	I think that we have got to increase the level of treatment available, increase arrest referral schemes in police custody suites and increase the testing of people in relation to drugs so that we can ensure that people who are criminals and are committing criminal offences are given a clear choice: they can either take the treatment to get off the drugs or they will face the consequences, which may well include custody.

Andrew Murrison: The secondary schools in the constituencies represented by the five Education Ministers receive 20 per cent. more funding than the schools in my Wiltshire constituency. That gap has widened since 1997. Given that the Prime Minister and his Ministers have consistently assured the House that they are looking at that problem, when can Wiltshire schoolchildren expect to receive a fair slice of the funding cake?

Tony Blair: First, there is an increase of more than 11 million to the Wiltshire LEA on last year, so that is the good news, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he and his hon. Friends had better wake up to what happened yesterday. His shadow Chancellor and his leader said that the answer was not money. Indeed, they wanted to cut the amount going to education. I am afraid that they are in a lot of trouble. Every Conservative Member who gets up from now on and asks for more money for schools, hospitals, transport or crime will, I am afraid, have to go down under the category of rebel.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: While the rain has been falling throughout the UK this week, the sun has been shining in Formby, where for the first time, we have been organising an arts festival. The festival has been made possible through lottery funding, and I know that many other constituencies throughout the UK have received similar funding to celebrate Britishness and community in this year of jubilee. What other measures can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that this is not a one-off event and that the sun keeps shining on that part of the world?

Tony Blair: Interesting requests come to Prime Ministers. The unfortunate thing about bank holidays marking particular events is that if we were to grant every request for a bank holiday that was made to us, very few people would be at work at any point in time. Of course, we try to make provision for sensible bank holidays, and I point out to my hon. Friend and to her constituents who are enjoying the sunshine that, as a result of the Government's signing up to the social chapter, we have paid holidays for the first time in this country as of right rather than at the discretion of the employer.

Anne McIntosh: In a parliamentary reply on 11 June, I was told:
	It is for the French railway industry and public authorities to ensure that rail freight through the channel tunnel is not disrupted.[Official Report, 11 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1133W.]
	In a further reply on 1 July, I was then told:
	The Strategic Rail Authority . . . will contribute to the cost of works in progress.[Official Report, 1 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 103W.]
	Why has there been a change in policy and what specific guarantee has the Prime Minister received that rail freight services will be restored in respect of 100 freight trains going in each direction each week by September? He assured the House that that would happen.

Tony Blair: Of course the French have a responsibility for this matter, but it is very much in our interest to help them to discharge that responsibility. I would have thought that the hon. Lady supported the moves to tighten security and achieve the September deadline for restoring the freight service to its proper position. It is not a question of either us or the French doing this; we have to do it together, and that is what we will do.

Constituency Visit (Blackpool)

Gordon Marsden: When he next plans to visit Blackpool.

Tony Blair: I will visit Blackpool in the autumn.

Gordon Marsden: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he will be warmly welcomed back to a Blackpool that has had three sure start schemes, one of the best-used NHS walk-in centres in the country, and major sea defences all completed in the last 12 months? May I also remind him, however, that Blackpool has 11 million visits a year, and that those visits are not fully funded by the money that is given for policing, health and social services? Given that we are having a fundamental review of local government finance, will he at least talk to his colleagues about this factor, which disadvantages Blackpool and other seaside towns?

Tony Blair: Let me congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on the significant advances that they have made on the facilities in Blackpool and on the changes in schools and health, which are important for them. On visitors' costs, he will know that there is a consultation at the moment; some options include provision for this, and some do not. This is obviously a matter that we will consider very carefully, but, at this time, I cannot give him a determined view.

Engagements

Jonathan R Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 6,500 parents, including 30 in the Medway towns, struggling to bring up their children in bed-and-breakfast hotels, where they are forced to share a bathroom, toilet and kitchen? Is it not the case that compassionate words are simply not good enough for these children? Will he give a commitment that the 35 million provided to tackle this issue will be continued in the comprehensive spending review so that we can put an end, once and for all, to this hellhole-type accommodation that blights the lives of our children?

Tony Blair: We have set a time limit of March 2004 by which to ensure that no homeless family with children is in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks. My hon. Friend is right to say that we have put 35 million into tackling this. Obviously, he will have to wait for the comprehensive spending review to find out the details of that. To return to the first question that I was asked this afternoon, the other thing that is necessary is to increase the levels of affordable housing and social housing in London, the south-east and elsewhere, because that is one of the things that will relieve the pressure on homelessness and avoid what I agree is the wholly unacceptable situation in which families are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for long periods of time.

Ian Paisley: Is the Prime Minister aware that all the members of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party in this House have received a warning from the police of a threat to their lives? Does he know that each one of us has had attempts on our lives in the past, by both bomb and bullet? Is he aware that the authorities have not only refused, in some cases, to make any provision of security for these Members of Parliament, but lavishly given security provision to many members of paramilitary organisations? Further to my letter to the Prime Minister of 4 July, delivered by hand, will he now agree to meet the Democratic Unionist Members of the House to discuss this issue?

Tony Blair: I shall be perfectly happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his delegationof course I will. In relation to protection, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has just indicated to me that, if the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns, he would be happy to meet him to discuss them. We obviously put forward protection for people on the basis of the advice that we receive, and I cannot really say any more than that about it. I do not think that it would be very sensible of me to speculate on levels of threat. I would simply say that, for all of us who have been Members of Parliament for many years, but not in Northern Ireland, it is sometimes difficult to understand the degree of courage that it takes to be a politician of any democratic description there. Even though the hon. Gentleman and I disagree on many things, I think that he and all his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and elsewhere who are democratic politicians deserve our thanks for persevering with the democratic commitment in the face of such threats.

Iain Luke: Given the Prime Minister's visit to Dundee earlier in the year, I am sure that he shares my joy at the announcement two weeks ago by a Canadian company called Arius 3D on the creation of 250 high-tech jobs in Dundee. The decision was taken, according to the president of that company, on the basis of Dundee's growing international reputation as a centre of innovation and expertise in life sciences and other technologies. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the two universities and to companies such as NCR and Michelin, which have done so much to give Dundee that position and the growing added value from such jobs?

Tony Blair: I well remember my visit to Dundee and to Cyclacel, which is a new technology company in my hon. Friend's constituency. The two things that are most important at the moment are, first, carrying on the relationship between universities and businessDundee university and Abertay university have been pioneers in the link between business and universitiesand, secondly, the significance of science and biotechnology for the future of this country. I hope that the investment that we are making in science and the Government's strong commitment to science ensure that many more companies come to my hon. Friend's constituency and to others up and down the country.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make. Several Members have written to me expressing concern that Members of the House who were or who are members of the RMT union might have been, or might be, subject to improper pressure on the part of the union. I have considered whether such information as has been brought to my attention justifies me in giving precedence to a motion to refer the union's actions to the Standards and Privileges Committee. On the information that I now have, I am unable to give Members the precedence they seek.
	Let me, however, draw the attention of all Members to part of the House's resolution of 6 November 1995, which states that
	it is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his or her constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament, or stipulating that he or she shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament.
	The full text of the resolution is set out on page 33 of the code of conduct.
	No evidence has been submitted to me that arrangements between Members and the union have been of that contractual nature. The House expects at all times that Members will take the greatest care to ensure that their relationships with all outside bodies will be in strict conformity with our rules.

Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it relate to this matter?

Brian Mawhinney: Yes. I thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker, as one of those who wrote to you. Right hon. and hon. Members will have heard your judgment. Would we be right to assume that your statement should be seen as a warning to outside bodies to stay well clear of any behaviour that might raise even the suspicion of a breach of privilege in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: Those bodies must interpret my statement as they think fit.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am one of the other Members who drew this matter to your attention. Can you confirm that the letter you have seen is the reply to the union on behalf of a number of Members of the House, but that you have not yet seen the letter from the union to Members, which made the apparent threats to which the Leader of the House and other Members have referred?
	Will you also confirm, Mr. Speaker, that following my request for the full correspondence to be put in the Librarya request to which the Leader of the House agreedonly part of the correspondence was put there?

Mr. Speaker: I will not go into detail about the correspondence that I have received. That last matter is a matter not for me, but for the Leader of the House.

Drugs Strategy

David Blunkett: With permission, I wish to make a statement responding to the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on drugs. In doing so, I wish to make it clear that I will publish a substantial update of the 1998 drugs strategy this autumn.
	On 23 October, in my evidence to the Select Committee, I set out a number of key themes that are reflected in the Committee's report. I am grateful for the excellent work done by the Chair and members of the Committee, and to all who have assisted both the Committee and me, including my drugs unit. I also thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the many agencies and authoritative bodies that have contributed.
	I cannot imagine that there is a Member of Parliament who does not wish to ensure that those whom we represent are free of the misery that is caused by drug abuse. Class A drugs are the scourge of modern time, and are potential killers. Over the last 30 years the huge increase in the use of drugs, particularly hard drugs, has caused untold damage to the health, life chances and well-being of individuals. That has undermined family life, fuelled criminality and damaged communities. The estimated social and economic costs of drug misuse are well in excess of 10 billion. Around three quarters of crack and heroin users claim to be committing crime to feed their habit.
	I am grateful for the considerable progress made by my predecessors. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for the announcement that we are to make today of an additional investment, totalling 183 million over the next three years, in treatment services and harm minimisation.
	The number of people beginning treatment has increased by an average of 8 per cent. each year since 1998. In 2000, seizures worth 780 million were made. Last year 3.4 tonnes of heroin and 10.9 tonnes of cocaine were seized, which exceeded the targets.
	Today I want to inform the House of the overall direction of the review of the drugs strategy, and the Committee's report. There will be an increased focus on class A drugs. The message is clear: drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade and, where necessary, direct young people away from their use. We will not legalise or decriminalise any drugs, nor do we envisage a time when that would be appropriate.
	As recommended by the Committee, there will be a better focus on those whose drug addiction causes the most harm to them and to societythose described as problematic drug users. In the last two years we have established the National Treatment Agency, and invested more than half a billion pounds. We have begun to fill the gap in services relating to crack addiction.
	We will continue the rapid expansion of offenders' referral for treatment. We accept that expansion in managed prescribing for heroin addiction will be necessary for the most appropriate casesthat there must be the right treatment for the right patient. But more than treatment is required: after-care and rehabilitation must become part of the package of care for those ending treatment or leaving prison. Harm minimisation will be given greater priority. However, in the form in which the term is normally used, we are not persuaded that shooting galleries would be helpful at this time. We will use the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Bill to confiscate the assets of those whose lifestyle depends on the misery of, and danger caused to, others, and to target the regional or middle drug market.
	We will clamp down on dealers who prey on the young. We will increase the sentences for trafficking and dealing in class B and C drugs to 14 years. This will avoid sending mixed messages to those dealing in more than one drug, and will establish a new lead in Europe-wide discussions. However, we do not agree that it is necessary to introduce supply for gain offences. We will support parents and families to help them cope with the effects of addiction. In line with the Committee's recommendation, we will ensure that carers and families are involved in the development of services.
	We will launch an education campaign, targeted at young people, with the message that all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers. We are not persuaded that ecstasy should be downgraded: it kills. However, the message to young people and families must be open, honest and believable. That is why I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of cannabis. It has recommended that the current classification is disproportionate in relation to the harmfulness and nature of other controlled drugs. It was clear, and so am I, that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug, and should remain illegal. However, it is not comparable with crack, heroin or ecstasy. The council made it clear that greater differentiation between drugs that kill and drugs that cause harm would be both scientifically justified and educationally sensible.
	I have considered this advice, along with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. I have taken account of the Metropolitan police experiment in Lambeth, which has seen a 10 per cent. increase in arrests of class A drug dealers. The Metropolitan police will today announce that the pilot will be adjusted, and that the new model will be applicable across London in the coming months. I can tell the House that I will seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug by July of next year.
	Let me be clear: cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police be able to control the streets and uphold order. That is why I will instate the ability to arrest for possession where public order is threatened, or where children are at risk. The Association of Chief Police Officers will shortly issue national guidance to ensure that in the vast majority of cases, officers will confiscate the drug and use warnings. Police time saved will be refocused on class A drugs.
	Where communities are strong, drugs do not take hold. Drug-related crime and disorder devastates communities. That is why last year, we launched the communities against drugs fund, which will provide 220 million over three years to enable communities to become part of the solution. It is the vulnerable who suffer most through drugs, and statutory and voluntary agencies, families and communities all have a role to play in protecting them.
	Through education, harm minimisation, treatment, and tough action against dealers and traffickers, we have a winning strategy. It will require positive commitment, rather than grandstanding. Last October, I called for a mature and intelligent debate, and in making today's statement, I hope that we continue that sensible approach. I commend the statement to the House.

Oliver Letwin: I thank the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in giving me an early sight of the statement.
	The House will recognise that this was an extraordinary statement, made on an extraordinary day. There are two coherent alternative strategies on cannabis, but in his statement today, the Home Secretary has not adopted either of them.
	A serious argument can be made for complete legalisation of cannabis, with sale being taken out of the hands of the drug dealers and the substance being treated like tobacco or alcohollicensed and taxed. Alternatively, as we prefer, policy can be constructedas it is in Sweden, for exampleto make serious efforts to lead young people away from cannabis use. The Home Secretary has not adopted either of those courses. He is giving control over cannabis to the drug dealers, with the police turning away.
	This is not just the day on which the Home Secretary has made a statement about a muddled and dangerous policy. Today is also the day when the Home Secretary's chief adviser on drugs, Mr. Keith Hellawell, has resigned in protest at that muddled and dangerous policy, telling the Today programme:
	this is causing a great deal of problem on the streets. It's causing a great deal of problem for parents who just don't know where they are.
	Commenting later on the Home Secretary's Brixton experiment, Mr. Hellawell went on to say that it has led to an open season for those peddling drugs.
	There are some hard questions that the Home Secretary needs to answer. He needs to explain to the House whether he intends the police to arrest people who are openly selling cannabisas they are on the streets of Brixton todayor whether he is asking the police to look away. He needs to explain to the House why, if he is effectively decriminalising cannabis use, he still wants young people to buy their cannabis from criminals. He also needs to explain how it can be right to tell one set of people that it is half okay to smoke cannabis, but to tell another set of people they may be put in prison for 10 years if they sell it. In short, the Home Secretary needs to explain how, with a policy that consists of deeply confusing mixed messages, he can conceivably expect to reduce drug dependency and criminality in this country.
	The saddest thing about this policy is that it owes it origins not to the advice of the Government's chief adviser on drugs, not to a well considered examination of the results of the Brixton experiment, and certainly not to the views of people whose children's lives are being destroyed by drugs, but to a political stratagem. The Home Secretary adopted this policy[Interruption.]oh yes, and he told people sobecause he believed that he could wrong-foot all his opponents, buying off the libertarians with increasing liberalisation, and the anti-drugs lobby with a show of toughness.
	However, as his own adviser said today,
	there is just a sort of repackaging, a respinning of the issue to appear as if something has been done.
	The Home Secretary's clever stratagem has disintegrated in 24 hours. It has presented the Government with a massive liability. Much more importantly, it will present many of our most vulnerable communities with the prospect of social disaster.
	I admire the Home Secretary on many counts. One of his most admirable features has been his willingness on repeated occasions over the past few months to withdraw from ill conceived policies and legislative proposals. It is not too late for him to display that same admirable quality in the coming days. He has time to think again before this disastrous Order in Council is implemented. In the interests of the Government, and in the interests of the young people of this country, he should do so.

David Blunkett: I am very sad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the view that he has this afternoon. It is right to believe that the issue is not a political football, but he is right to point out that there is a stratagemas he would have itfrom the political right that advocates complete legalisation and a free market. I have read that in the leaders of The Daily Telegraph and elsewhere.
	The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to make cheap remarks about policy being withdrawn. Yes, I lost the vote on religious incitement in the Lords and, yes, we have sought to find sensible compromise if we can achieve the same goal by a different route. However, the House should make no mistake that the right hon. Gentleman would be wrong if he thought that he could get away with pretending that a sensible move to protect the lives of young people, and to provide credibility for the educational message to them, can be summed up as a cheap political stratagem. It is not.
	The policy has been adopted after receiving the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, scientific evidence, the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committeewhich has members from all parties and has heard scientific, medical and other evidence over the past six monthsas well as advice on what works from those working with young people involved with drugs. Families were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and I can confirm that we also listened to families. It was the families who convinced me that the measure would be right. They told me of how they had told their children that all drugs were the same and had the same impact and effect. When their young people had tried cannabis and found that that was not the case, they did not believe their parents when they told them of the dangers of crack and heroin. Families have told me that we need credibility in the message that we give young people. We need to be able to educate them in the dangers that exist. We need to tell them that hard drugs kill but that cannabis, like other class C drugs, is dangerous but not widely dangerous to one's future and mortality.
	Let me answer the questions directly. Are we keeping cannabis as an illegal drug? Yes. Are we decriminalising it? No. Do we believe it is harmful? Yes. Are we educating young people to that effect? Yes, we are. Do we think that we can lead young people away from moving on to hard drugs by being honest with them? Yes, we do and so do those who work with young people. Should we malign the police for taking a similar stance in the Met or through the Association of Chief Police Officers? The right hon. Gentleman uses that organisation against me time and again. When he wants me to give them total independence, I am to believe its word, not mine. Let us have some consistency.
	That consistency was not exhibited by the former drugs tsar, Mr. Keith Hellawell, who ceased to be the tsar when I took over as Home Secretary. He has been given part-time roles advising on international drugs matters over the past nine months. [Hon. Members: Shame on you.] No, not shame on me. I shall not stoop to argue Mr. Hellawell's case this afternoon except to say this, so that it is on the record. When I told Keith Hellawell last Octobernot August as he said at lunchtimethat we would refer the matter to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, he agreed that it would be a good idea. We have a minute to that effect. He has changed his mind three times, as he is entitled to do.
	I have changed my mind once. Until two years ago, I was against reclassification, but I have been convinced by the evidence, by the need to target hard-drug dealers, and by the way in which we can clamp down on those who are threatening the lives of young people. It is for those reasons that I have chosen to back the police in their request that if people are dealing in drugs, including cannabis, if they are causing or potentially causing disorder by the flagrant use of those drugs, or if they are threatening the lives of young people, they will be arrested. Those dealing will get not 10 years but 14 years, as I said in my statement.
	This is a strategy that is aimed at securing harm minimisation, proper treatment and education. Above all, we want to get across the message that we know what we are doing. If young people understand that, they will get the message. Drugs are dangerous, and class A drugs kill. That is the message this afternoon.

Chris Mullin: Although there may be one or two differences between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me, may I say at the outset that it is obvious that he and his advisers have taken the Select Committee's report seriously? I am grateful for that.
	In addition, I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to reclassify cannabis. It is plain common sense, and he should take no notice of the uncharacteristic nonsense from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me if I say that we must not get too hooked on cannabis. He is right to say that heroin and crack cocaine are overwhelmingly the drugs that cause the most problems. We must concentrate on them, and I was disappointed that the Opposition spokesman had nothing to say about them.
	How does my right hon. Friend envisage that the increase in managed prescribing to which he is committed will be achieved? He said that safe injecting houses would not be helpful at this moment, but does that mean that he might be prepared to consider them in the future?
	Finally, will he say why it has not been possible to agree that the National Treatment Agency should audit drug treatment services in prisons, as well as outside them?

David Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for what he has said. He has worked very hard on this matter, and the Select Committee has taken a lot of evidence, as I said earlier.
	The Government are not convinced that shooting galleries, as they have been described, would be helpful at the moment. We want to build a consensus around the rapid development of heroin prescribing for the right patients. We want to do so in association with the country's medical services so that there is confidence in such prescribing. That confidence was undermined when the experiments that began in the early 1970s were misused, and drugs were sold on.
	We believe that careful, managed and overseen prescribing will help enormously in reducing the terrible pyramid selling by users who capture others in their lair. Such prescribing will help to reduce the terrible harm and misery experienced by people injecting in the most violent and unhealthy circumstances, and to lessen the harm that that brings to them and to the community.
	We are not turning our faces away from providing safe and clean areas: in fact, we are developing, together with the health service, new policies on what is known as the paraphernalia, to minimise the harm that people suffer. However, we need to build a consensus. We must make sure that people are secure in accepting that we are not simply setting up shooting galleries outside clubs, where people can use needles and drugs in an unsupervised and unordered fashion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South made a final point about the audit of drug treatment services in prison. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is present, as we must ensure that there is a much more coherent approach to health policies in prisons in general. Mental health in particular relates to the misuse of drugs. We must make sure that there is a coherent policy that spans not only what happens to people inside prison, but above all what happens to those who leave prison.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. I share his view that drugs policy is a difficult, sensitive but very important issue. If we are honest, we must admit that there are differences of view on the matter among members of all political parties.
	Will the Home Secretary accept that, even though hon. Members will not have identical views, it would be a good idea to conduct consultation with people across the political divide over the next few months? In that way, the maximum consensus can by achieved before the strategy is finalised in the autumn, as the right hon. Gentleman said that he intends. I offer the services of the Liberal Democrat party to ensure that that conversation takes place, even if, in the end, we do not agree on all the outcomes.
	Although the Home Secretary was right to identify the successes and progress that have been achieved, does he agree that the major national tests show that we are still failing in this area? The statistics show that addiction to drugs is rising, as are the numbers of people for whom drug use brings harm and death. If those statistics are the product of past policy, then the policy must be changed to try to turn matters around.
	I think that the Home Secretary was effectively saying that he shares the view that this is a health issue for the user and the addict for which we should seek a health remedy. For the dealer and the trafficker, the appropriate remedy is the criminal justice systemthe courts and punishment.
	I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said about heroin, which is hugely important. If he rejects the shooting gallery option, does he agree that we must find a way of taking the heroin addict out of the clutches of the criminal profiteers and into the safe hands of the health service professionals? [Interruption.]
	Does the Home Secretary agree with me that all the evidence is that although it is appropriate to lock up dealers and traffickers, doing so is entirely inappropriate as a way of dealing with the repeated habits of addicts? It adds thousands of people to the prison numbers, it is of very little use to them and does the Prison Service no good.
	Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the new logic behind having different classifications of drugs yet the same maximum penalty for people dealing in those drugs, as will happen now with amphetamines and cannabis?
	The Master of Rolls, among many others, says that the law on cannabis is not working. We, like others, have argued for a long time that cannabis should be reclassified as a category C drug. We also welcome the announcement of a common police response across London. [Hon. Members: Come on] However, does the Home Secretary accept that there is a horrible danger of sending a muddled message if the national policy means that people are not normally stopped for cannabis use and possession while if it is a public order matter, it becomes an arrestable offence? That sends a muddled message about whether or not it is acceptable to use cannabis.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, let me say that I was reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman as he is the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, but I want shorter contributions in future.

David Blunkett: I will try to be short and snappy in reply, Mr. Speaker. For the first time in quite a few months, I agreed with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, except for his final point. If there is a will for people to come together and look at developing a consensus on the attack on drugs and drug abuse, we would be very happy to take that up.
	I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point. I do not think that there is a mixed message in saying that if a drug is flagrantly displayed, used to provoke, in danger of causing disorder and makes the police's job more difficult, they have every right to arrest the people responsible. That will also help in respect of dealers. There has been some concern and misgiving about having differential penalties for dealers of different drugs, given that there is often confusion about whether dealers peddle one drug to lure people into taking another. We are intending to deal with the issue by raising the penalty to 14 years. However, we entirely agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says about developing harm minimisation programmes and prescribing for heroin. The real danger in many of our most deprived communities, and the cause of criminality, is the growth of crack. We have a major national and international challenge on our hands, and I think that we should agree to tackle it together.

Kali Mountford: Can the Home Secretary tell the House what implications there are from his announcement for the many multiple sclerosis sufferers in my constituencysome grow their own cannabis while others buy small quantities to relax their muscleswhile they await the outcome of the NHS review on cannabinoids?

David Blunkett: The only comfort that I can give my hon. Friend is that the Secretary of State for Health and I have seen the results of the early phases of the tests. They have proved successful and, as with the use in medical applications of heroin derivative, so it will be with cannabis derivative. As soon as the final phase is completed and we have the results, which I hope will be very soon, we will give the Medicines Control Agency the opportunity to ensure that that derivative can be used and the benefits accrued to patients such as my hon. Friend's constituents.

Ann Widdecombe: May I ask the Home Secretary what consideration he gave to creating an offence of substantial possession? If those in possession of cannabis will not now be arrested unless they deal to children or cause a public order offence, what will be the position of those in possession of substantial amounts of cannabis? Where the police do not have quite enough evidence to prove intent to supply and therefore cannot make an arrest for dealing, what is the position of those people? Will he consider the law in those countries that have an offence of substantial possession under which people carrying unlikely supplies of cannabis for personal use can be arrested?

David Blunkett: This is a serious and difficult issue. As with so many issues that, unfortunately, have become adversarial in recently days, there is a very fine line to tread. The fine line in this circumstance is whether dealers distribute and therefore disseminate small amounts of the drug to avoid being arrested as dealers and therefore whether a specific amount of the drug would be a reasonable trigger to determine whether they are dealing or merely possessing the drug. The jury is out on that. We are not convinced that it would be wise to create such an offence at the moment, but the right hon. Lady has hit on a reasonable point. If we and the police became convinced that it would help, we would certainly consider such an offence.

Jimmy Hood: Many hon. Members will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, but I have to tell him that I am not one of them. I very much appreciate what he is seeking to do, but I am very concerned about the mixed messages coming from today's statement. May I raise an issue that has not been mentioned so far? The greatest killer drug in this country is tobacco. Young people are becoming increasingly addicted to tobacco, and that is a great problem for all parents. If we make it easier to consume cannabis, the only way to consume cannabis is through tobacco, so there will be a greater temptation for younger kids to try cannabis by smoking cigarette tobacco. That can be more damaging to our young people, by dragging them into tobacco addiction as well. I understand what the Home Secretary is seeking to do, but I am not convinced that his statement will help to achieve it. My great fear is that it will increase tobacco addiction.

David Blunkett: There is a general feeling that, if we were starting from scratch, we would take much more draconian measures against tobacco use than are possible in society today. Some of us fought very hard to ensure that tobacco advertising was banned and that young people were dissuaded from using tobacco in public places and elsewhere. I sympathise with the points that my hon. Friend makes because they cross fine lines. For example, the evidence on gateway access using tobacco, alcohol and, yes, cannabis to class A drugs is very mixed, but it is clear that all three play a part in taking young people on to the killer drugs. All I can offer my hon. Friend is this: the strategy that we have adopted so far has not worked. It is estimated that 46 per cent. of those under 30 have used cannabis at some time, so seeking to criminalise them or to pick them up for mere possession or use

Oliver Letwin: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said that it is still criminal.

David Blunkett: Yes, it is criminal, but picking up, arresting and charging young people for possession would not be sensible. The right hon. Gentleman giggles. My view as a parent is that, if youngsters of 18 or 19 are found in possession of cannabis, a warning signal has to be sent to them, but arresting and charging them would not be in the interests of themselves or society. That is why we are taking these steps.

John Maples: The Home Secretary must be right to want to worry less about soft drugs and more about hard drugs; it therefore seems illogical to equate the penalties for selling both. If people are to suffer the same penalty, whichever they sell, they will be more inclined to sell the more profitable one. His statement fails to recognise, however, that for many years, well before 1997, this country's drugs policy has been a complete failure. Fifty per cent. of property crime is drug related, nearly three quarters of our jail population are in for drug-related offences, and millions of pounds and masses of police and customs time are spent on the problem, yet drugs are readily available close to every school, even in a rural constituency such as mine, and even in the most secure buildings in the countrythe jails run by the Home Officewhere drugs are apparently easily obtained.
	Far more fundamental consideration needs to be given to this problem. As part of that, will the Home Secretary consider making it general practice to treat hard drug addicts not as criminals but as addicts, as we would treat alcoholics or others with a health problem? Provided that they entered some sort of rehabilitation programme, drugs should be available to them on prescription. That would reduce crime and enable us to concentrate resources on education and rehabilitation.

David Blunkett: On a small point of clarification, the sentence for trafficking in class A drugs is life. On a lighter note, I hope that it remains so, whatever the Lord Chief Justice thinks about the Home Secretary and Parliament.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about treating addicts as opposed to punishing themthat must be the direction in which we move, and drug testing and treatment orders and arrest referral are designed to do that. The establishment of the National Treatment Agency in April last year and the development of sensible drug policies in prison were necessary to start the process of reversing years of neglect. I do not wish to make a silly party political point this afternoon[Interruption.] I will not do so. A concerted effort inside and outside prison is necessary. The modest progress that has been made so far in reducing the availability of drugs inside prisons needs to be accelerated. On that issue, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.

Kate Hoey: Is the Home Secretary not aware that, whatever he says today, and whatever the experts are saying, a stark and uncomfortable message is going out to families across the country that cannabis is okay, no matter how strong it is and no matter how it is taken? In my view, the experiment in my constituency was not a success. There are more drug dealers than ever and there are more people using cannabis. That is the message. Is the Home Secretary certain that, in 10 or 20 years' time, we will not look back on this day as the one when we got it wrong?

David Blunkett: I want to say to the hon. Lady, whose views I respect and whose campaign has been vigorous, that there are no certainties in dealing with drugs policy. There are no certainties in finding a way forward. If there were, we would have found them, and I would be much less modest than I am this afternoon about putting forward the policy.
	All I can tell the hon. Lady is that, first, the facts that she has enunciatedI do not mean the assertions that have been made by certain members of the communityare in doubt. The 10 per cent. increase in the capture of class A drugs dealers is a fact. The 10 per cent. drop in the last six months in robbery on the streets in Brixton is a fact.

Kate Hoey: It is nothing to do with cannabis.

David Blunkett: The re-use of police time is certainly making a difference. Robbery in Lambeth is now at almost a two-year low. Those may be uncomfortable facts as they do not back up the rhetoric, but they are facts that I have taken into account in making the statement this afternoon.

Lady Hermon: Will the Home Secretary enlighten us all about his consultations with Ms Jo Daykin, who isand remains, I am pleased to sayNorthern Ireland's drug and alcohol strategy co-ordinator? I ask about the consultation because of the concern that she expressed on the record today:
	My concern is that young people will get a mixed message that cannabis is now harmless, which it is not.
	She pointed out that the changes announced by the Secretary of State today
	would not take into account the prevalence
	of cannabis
	in Northern Ireland. Whereas in England there are major problems with class A drugs like heroin, the main drugs of choice here are cannabis and ecstasy.
	Will the Home Secretary confirm that he has taken into account Jo Daykin's representations? Can he confirm that the substantial additional investment that the Secretary of State for Health announced will be extended to Northern Ireland?

David Blunkett: I can confirm the latter point.
	On the hon. Lady's earlier points, I understand the issues that have been raised. Representations were made, which is one reason why I decided to increase the penalty for traffickers and dealersa particular problem in Northern Irelandto 14 years. I did that specifically in response to a request and to ensure that the implementation of the new recategorisation will take place next summer and will take account of the particular problems of Northern Ireland.
	I want to make a substantive point. The only people who will be giving the wrong message are not me, Ministers or those putting forward the policy, but people out there who are now telling young people that cannabis is legal or has been decriminalised. That is why I was genuinely disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary fell into just that trap.

Brian Iddon: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his willingness to listen and to think about a very serious problem and shift policy in a very pragmatic manner. It was not, and it is not, right to criminalise very young people who possess trivial amounts of cannabis, often on a first-time basis. However, like me, I am sure he understands that in the few months since he made the provisional announcement there has been considerable confusion about the policy. It concerns me that it will take until next July for the recategorisation from B to C to occur. Will he tell us why that is so? Will he also assure the House that the change in policy on prescribing heroin to the more chaotic heroin users, who cause the most criminal problems, will take immediate effect and that we will not have to wait that long for the heroin policy to change?

David Blunkett: Where we do not have to change the law, we will act swiftly but by consensus. As I said earlier, we should move as quickly as we can towards prescribing and towards tackling problem users. The allocation of resources will help with that. The delay will allow us to have a debate in the House on recategorisation, to change the trafficking and dealing penalties and to be able to put in place the necessary changes in the models that the Metropolitan police and then, under the Association of Chief Police Officers guidance, police across the country will operate.

Peter Lilley: I wanted to welcome any liberalising measure from the Home Office, following a series of illiberal measures, but I fear that the Home Secretary's proposals may land us with the worst of all possible worlds. Surely steps effectively to depenalise the use or possession of cannabis at the same time as retaining or reinforcing the penalties for its supply will do nothing to reduce demand for cannabis while continuing to drive soft drug users into the arms of hard drug providers. What does he propose to do to break the link between the supply of cannabis and that of heroin and cocaine?

David Blunkett: I respect the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been interested in and committed to such issues for some time. I am disappointed, therefore, to hear what many of his hon. Friends have to say. They claim that a differential rate for trafficking and dealing would lead to people receiving a lesser penalty for dealing in cannabisthey would get away with it and encourage people to get involved in class A drugs. We now hear the reverse argument: that by having a similar penalty, we make it more likely that people will turn to class A drugs. We cannot have it both ways. It has to be one or the other. [Interruption.] We have used the word confusion a great deal this afternoon. I will examine Hansard and the public statements to ensure that we are clear about where the confusion has arisen.
	I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point on traffickers. We said that we will target the middle-market dealers. The assets recovery agency will assist with that when the Proceeds of Crime Bill completes its stagestomorrow, I hope, if it is not blocked in the House of Lords. We also intend to use the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies more effectively, as we have been doing, to work in combination to break the trafficking route, but that is the biggest challenge of all.

Tony Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement is important because he is concentrating on the hard drugs, which do enormous damage not simply to the individual but to the fabric of society? I urge him, however, to look carefully at the practice of prescribing heroin for the chaotic users. Breaking the link between money and heroin or crack use is important if we are to have an effect across society, and prescribing has a significant role to play.
	I hope that the Home Secretary will return to the issue of cannabis because I think that he needs to move further on it. In cities such as Manchester, the use of cannabis is so widespread that it no longer makes sense to take even the approach that he outlines. However, I strongly welcome the emphasis on hard drugs, which are the real issue.

David Blunkett: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on harm minimisation through prescribing. The Netherlands and, recently, Portugal found that without legitimising fully the world supply of those drugs, which breaches every international convention, and the trafficking, by which I mean dealing and selling across the counter, the same conflict is faced all the time. There will be a contradiction whatever steps we take. If we were all prepared to examine that problem and be honest about it, we would have a much more rational debate.

Ann Winterton: I pay tribute to the work of Keith Hellawell, with whom I had contact in the previous Parliament. His work was valid and his views were sound.
	I and many parents believe that not enough emphasis is put on drug prevention, especially on education. I am not merely talking about harm reduction, which is often what is proposed. If drug education is to be effective, clear and unequivocal messages must be sent to the young. The Home Secretary's statement means that those messages are now extremely mixed. I leave him with the thought that virtually no crack cocaine or heroin addict in this country did not start first on cannabis.

David Blunkett: I might be prepared to accept that, with some exceptions, there is not a hard-drug user who did not start on either tobacco, alcohol or cannabis. If we were all more rational in what we think and say, we could have a more reasonable debate. I agree that the education campaign is critical. It is why we are stepping it up and seeking tenders for an entirely new approach. We accepted the hard-hitting approach recommended by the Select Committee.
	I pay tribute to Keith Hellawell, who gave his time, energy and commitment for many years.

Nick Hawkins: Having rubbished him.

David Blunkett: I am being heckled. I have not rubbished Keith Hellawell; he rubbished me. He, not I, went on the Today programme. He decided that he would announce today in an extraordinary fashion the resignation that he had tendered a month ago. On a lighter note, I thank him also for the drug targets that he set for us all. They were described as inspirational: they inspired him; they perspired him; and they appear to have expired him.

Janet Dean: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome the extra money for treatment because, as I am sure everyone will agree, when treatment is requested, it should be made available. It is right that we should have a credible drugs message. I welcome my right hon. Friend's reassertion that all drugs are harmful because that is the message that we should get over to young people.
	I welcome the proposal to increase the maximum sentence for dealers, but I am concerned that my right hon. Friend does not believe that there should be a supply for gain offence[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. MacKay, let me chair the proceedings.

Janet Dean: I would welcome any further information and views that my right hon. Friend could give on a supply for gain offence. I also ask for reassurance

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question is sufficient for the Home Secretary.

David Blunkett: We believe, as do our lawyers, that the supply for gain offence can be dealt with under the existing discretion, particularly with the new clarity about the offence of dealing.

David Cameron: As someone who sits on the Home Affairs Committee, may I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and for accepting some of our recommendations? It might have been more coherent if he had accepted all of them, but perhaps that is too much to ask.
	Does the Home Secretary agree that the biggest prize is to get the 270,000 heroin users into treatment? With that in mind, will he consider a specific suggestion made to me by police in Oxford, which is to speed up the operation of the drug treatment and testing order because the wheels of justice turn slowly and it takes a long time for people to get to court? Will he consider making the start of treatment a condition of police bail in some circumstances? Will he ensure that all forms of treatment are available on DTTOs, including methadone replacement? Will he ensure also that, as the Select Committee suggested, if someone starts treatment outside prison, they are able to continue it in prison because stopping treatment can be damaging for the health and it increases crime?

David Blunkett: I agree entirely with the latter point, and it is a serious issue. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his open mind and his willingness to engage with these issues on the Select Committee. These are difficult and sometimes dangerous questions to deal with in politics, and I respect him for doing so. We should examine the commitment to ensure that we use treatment as a clear incentive, whether that concerns bail, referral or the question of whether someone will be sent to prison. In the broader statement that will be issued in the autumn, I hope to be able to deal with that more thoroughly.

Jon Owen Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the first Home Secretary in 30 years to stand at the Dispatch Box and argue for a drugs policy based on evidence rather than prejudice and emotion. It was a great disappointment to see the shadow Home Secretary argue so uncomfortably a case in which he clearly does not believe. Will the right hon. Gentleman look to his own Front Bench and recognise that seven of its Members have admitted to using cannabis

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is to the Home Secretary, not the shadow Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary can answer the hon. Gentleman's question, that will be fine, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that it is late in the day.

David Blunkett: I am keen to maintain our privacy, as the shadow Home Secretary knows because he is always chiding me about it. I shall not ask anybody to reveal what they took, and I hope that the papers will not. I have not taken anything, by the way, just in case that answer evokes the question, but after being Home Secretary, who knows? I thank my hon. Friend for his words, which I greatly appreciate.

Angela Watkinson: I was the only member of the Home Affairs Committee not to sign the report. I was implacably against the declassification of cannabis and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for not accepting the other recommendations to declassify ecstasy from class A to class B or to set up a network of heroin shooting-up galleries throughout the country. If the Home Secretary is in any doubt about the gateway theory relating to cannabis, will he please speak to any police officer, who will confirm it to him?
	Colleagues have rightly referred to treatment for existing addicts. Does the Home Secretary agree that unless measures are put in place to prevent the ever-increasing flow of new addicts, the treatment for existing addicts will become unachievable and unaffordable? Our resources, such as they are, should be focused on prevention and education. I have been horrified by some of the examples that pass for education in our schools and some of the leaflets that are circulating, which teach children how to avoid being caught, rather than stopping them taking drugs.

David Blunkett: There is a big distinction between advising children how to avoid being caught, and advising young people, for instance, on fluid intake and on the way in which they can protect themselves in clubs. That distinction must be made. I agree entirely that the task of education, preventing people from drifting into drugs, building confidence, self-esteem, self-belief and hope for the future and early intervention are all critical in this regard. I do not accept that the evidence on the gateway to hard drugs is overwhelming; otherwise I would not have made the statement that I made. I accept that the evidence is incredibly mixed, as I said earlier.

Irene Adams: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on taking head-on what is probably the scourge of our time. However, there are aspects of his speech with which I disagree. I represent a constituency that has very strong communities, but it was almost destroyed in the mid-1990s by drugs, and I have to say that cannabis was a part of that. The only way in which we tackled the situation was by all the agencies coming togetherthe politicians, the police, the medical services, the educationists and the whole community. Using that approach, we reduced violent crime by 56 per cent. within a year.
	My main concern todaymy great fearis that much of the Home Secretary's statement will be lost, and the only part of it that will be reported is the downgrading of cannabis. It is almost tantamount to telling a child that he may not have a sweet, but that if he takes it from the drawer behind our back, that is all right. We are sending extremely mixed messages that will worry many communities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that there is a wide-ranging debate in the House and outside it before the proposals are enacted.

David Blunkett: I am happy to give that assurance, and to offer my congratulations on the enormous amount of work that my hon. Friend put into building the community as a solution, to which I referred in my statement. The risk to which she put herself at one time in doing that, I understand, is greatly respected. Organised criminalsthose intent on destroying the lives of others and making moneyare at the heart of the challenge that we face. I believe that what we are trying to do today by sending the right messagethe proportionate messagewill help. All of us with children of our own deal differently with the commission of an offence or some deed that we know to be wrong. We deal with it differently not just in terms of how often it happens, but what it is. That is what I am trying to do in aiding the police to do their job.

Pete Wishart: I, too, welcome the move to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C, but has the Home Secretary given any thought to how the measure will apply across the United Kingdom? Such are the vagaries of the devolution settlement that drugs laws are reserved to this House, but criminal justice and police matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. For instance, in Scotland we have no system of caution, and all drugs offences will still be referred to the procurator fiscal. The Police Federation of Scotland has already said that the measure is irrelevant to Scotland. How does the Home Secretary envisage that it will apply to the whole United Kingdom, and does he agree that, as matters stand, it is irrelevant to Scotland?

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is one of the joys of devolution. As we talk to Ministers in the Executive, we need to ensure that there is clarity and continuity. I am sorry that people in Scotland have reacted in a different fashion, but I hope that we can get very similar messages across so that we are all batting on the same wicket in terms of reducing drug trafficking and drug use.

Paul Flynn: Will not today be remembered as the day when we started to get it right? The Secretary of State is to be commended for being the first with the courage and sense to change a policy that has failed every year since 1971. Then, there were 1,000 heroin addicts and no drug crime, and drug-related deaths were very rare. Every other Government's continuing with more and harsher prohibition has resulted in 250,000 addicts and record crime and deaths compared with any country in Europe.
	The Home Secretary has introduced a policy that changes direction and is pragmatic, rational and courageous. May I urge him to look at the drug injection rooms throughout Europe, which are a very distressing sight? I suggest that he go to the Paulus Kerk in Rotterdam to see people injecting. The needles are clean, and people are in hygienic surroundings with support, education and training for jobs. That is infinitely better than being on the streets.

David Blunkett: I accept that there is a debate to be had about managed prescribing and whether that spills over into unsupervised or alternative prescribing, but I am clear about the fact that it would not help that debate if we allowed people, unmanaged and unsupervised, to set up so-called shooting galleries around the country. That said, as regards the so-called paraphernaliasterilised water, pads and needlesit is critical that we are able to develop policies to minimise harm and to ensure that we take those things out of the hands of the dealers and organised criminals who are destroying people's lives.

Matthew Green: I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said, and I welcome it as an initial step forward. He stressed the importance of the credibility of the message to young people, but all the organisations and committees that he consulted represent the great and the good, and he made no mention of any consultation with usersyoung people themselves. Is he concerned that the whole debate may end up sounding like the great and the good patronising young people and not listening to their concerns about drugs?

David Blunkett: There is a danger in every area of policy that we end up debating with ourselves, those whom we meet, and those who influence us through the newspapers and other media. That is why the first-past-the-post constituency and the constituency work that we do are so crucialwe meet people in our surgeries every day and we have to respond to them.
	The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about listening to young people. All Departments need to pull together forums to listen to young people, hear their message, weigh it and give advice where we can. Young people do not necessarily expect diktats or life by exampleGod forbid that we should preach thatbut they expect us to establish a structure having heard what they have to say.

Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend has not proposed a perfect solution today, but, sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. Does he agree that those who oppose the proposal deny the sheer scale of the problem of crack and heroin throughout the country? Does he accept that the appointment of Mr. Hellawell, with the ridiculous title of drugs tsar, raised expectations, which were not met in the communities that we represent? Does he also accept that today is a watershed and that it will also raise expectations?
	The success of my right hon. Friend's proposal will be determined by whether the police use the opportunity to target dealers in class A drugs. That is crucial. People know the houses and cars from which people deal. The proposal will be successful only when people see action against those individuals.

David Blunkett: I agree. There will be change on the streets in the years ahead. Expectations are often raised and dashed, and democracy is thus damaged. I have tried to raise expectations not of immediate change but of long-term investment. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I were able to announce additional resources, and I hope that they will be complemented by further resources, consequent on next week's comprehensive spending review.

Points of Order

Andrew Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from a Work and Pensions Minister, or, indeed, from the Minister for Pensions to come to the House to correct a serious error on the record about the treatment of elderly and vulnerable pensioners? On 20 May, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), the Minister for Pensions said:
	Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres . . . or receiving home visits . . . By providing that choice, we will make improvements for the older pensioners who need to access such services from time to time.[Official Report, 20 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 4.]
	It has become apparent since the Department produced a briefing in late June that pensioners will not have the choice of a home visit before using the service. Most of them will have to take themselves to pension centres, many of which are located in places that are inconvenient for them. That constitutes a serious deceit of many elderly and vulnerable people. Have the essential steps been taken for the Government to rectify the impression that they gave the House?

Ian McCartney: In normal circumstances, that would be treated as a partisan, political point. However, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) has questioned my integrity and I have come to the House to set the matter straight; I have nothing to correct. I thank the hon. Gentleman for at least advising me that he intended to raise the matter in the Chamber.
	I want to make it crystal clear that the process of developing the Pension Service and the pension credit has been open and transparent. I have kept hon. Members informed of progress and I shall continue to do that. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions took evidence from the Pension Service on 12 June. After that session, the Committee asked for additional information on a range of issues, including the scope of the local service. The chief executive provided that on 2 July.
	Last Friday, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee, wrote to me personally to ask for fuller clarification of the local service, especially the availability of home visits for Pension Service customers. He requested a response in seven working days. I provided a fuller explanation through the Clerk to the Committee. I sent it well within the deadline, which does not expire for a day or so. I believe that it will fully tackle any remaining queries that the Select Committee may have. I shall place all the correspondence in the Library.
	I facilitated a visit to a Pension Service site for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Select Committee. I have extended a similar invitation to all hon. Members who participated in the debates on the State Pension Credit Act 2002. Furthermore, this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have written to all hon. Members to set out our plans for presentations to hon. Members and their staff on pension credit and the Pension Service. I intend to keep my promise. I did not mislead the House at any time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It sounds as if the Speaker does not need to rule on that point of order.

Paul Goodman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have gone too far down that road.

Paul Goodman: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Paul Goodman: I simply seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Please sit down. Perhaps you will get my guidance if you come to the Chair at a later stage, but the matter was not really a point of order.

Andrew Mitchell: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raised the case and the Minister replied. I do not want to hear any more about it at this stage.

Andrew Mitchell: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BILLS PRESENTED

Animal Sanctuaries (Licensing) (No. 2)

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, supported by Mr. John Randall, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Charles Hendry and Mr. David Wilshire, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing and control of animal sanctuaries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 168].

Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards) (No. 2)

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, supported by Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Dr. Julian Lewis and Mr. Desmond Swayne, presented a Bill to provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 169].

Litter and Fouling of Land By Dogs (No. 2)

Mr. Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 170].

Traveller Law Reform

David Atkinson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law in England and Wales as it applies to gypsies and travellers.
	Last month, my local paper, the Bournemouth Daily Echo, reported the following story under the headline Traveller Invasion:
	Travellers continue their invasion of the conurbation
	Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
	with the arrival over the weekend of 18 caravans and assorted vehicles on to Iford playing field. This is the latest incursion on to public open spaces and follows the arrival of 15 caravans at Redhill Common. These are in addition to the existing traveller encampments at Throop, Fleetsbridge and Castle Lane.
	Although you will not have read such local news, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will have read about what happened in Bournemouth last Christmas, when the national media gave widespread coverage to the occupation of a public park, King's park in my constituency, by a group of up to 200 caravans and 800 people of all ages. The travellers indicated that they intended to stay for the entire holiday period. The council sought a county court order for their eviction and the requisite notices were served on them, but to no avail. They left in their own time when they said they would: 12 days later, after new year's day.
	The chief executive of Bournemouth council said in his letter to the Home Secretary that that experience resulted in costs to the council of 50,000 and to the police of 40,000, together with severe detrimental effects on local businesses and the community. He said that those effects included a huge increase in the fear of crime in the neighbourhood; businesses and voluntary organisations being forced to close because their entrances were blocked; the closure of public houses and other facilities due to intimidating behaviour from large groups of travellers; a reduction in the credibility of the police force; severe damage to community relationsfor instance, a number of pubs and hotels attempted to exclude Irish visitors, many of whom had nothing to do with encampmentsand health and safety risks associated with criminal damage caused by the travellers.
	I shall not go into any further detail about what my local council's chief executive said in his extensive letter to the Home Secretary about our experience. Although the letter is entirely accurate, to continue to record these facts in the House would not be in keeping with the constructive spirit of the remedy for which I am seeking support today. The fact is that this was the largest such invasion of travellers experienced by our borough, it ended the year that had seen the largest number of such occupations of our parks and open spaces experienced by the borough and, as I have said, such occupations have now been happening almost every week this year.
	Lest the House should conclude that travellers come only to Dorset, I point out that the columns of Hansard clearly indicate that such experiences are taking place throughout much of the country. More hon. Members than ever before are tabling questions about travellers, gypsies and unauthorised encampments, provoked, no doubt, by similar experiences in their constituencies. Indeed, some hon. Members have already gone further than that this year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) described in his Westminster Hall debate of 15 January on the law of trespass how the police had not acted against travellers who had invaded his constituency.
	On 26 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) described similar experiences in his constituency, when he successfully sought the leave of the House to bring in his Trespassers on Land (Liability for Damage and Eviction) Bill. On 11 June, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) described his constituents' experience of travellers as a living hell in his Adjournment debate on unauthorised encampments.
	The response of Ministers to these concerns continues to be that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides remedies for local authorities to ask the police to use section 61, and for the police to ask local authorities to use section 77, whichever is most appropriate. As the House knows, last Friday the Home Office announced new powers for police and local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments.
	The reality is that, in many cases, not a lot of progress is made. When travellers eventually move off one unauthorised site, they move on to another. Councils are now deploying a variety of barriers and obstacles such as earth mounds, concrete boulders, locking posts and reinforced railings to keep travellers out of public parks and open spaces, at great cost both to the taxpayer and to the visual amenity. As the deputy chief constable of Dorset told me, in explaining why the use of available powers is not practical:
	We need to work to identify more effective levers or incentives to persuade travellers to act responsibly.
	That is the aim of the Bill for which I am seeking the support of the House today.
	The Traveller Law Reform Bill would establish for the first time within a legal framework the rights of gypsies and travellers to live a nomadic way of life. It would also establish the obligations that they owe to others in exercising that right. The Bill would create a new body, the gypsy and traveller accommodation commission, whose principal task would be to ensure that there was adequate accommodation for gypsies and travellers in England and Wales. The commission would be representative of the communities concerned, as well as of interested public bodies and voluntary organisations. It would also be expected to respond to problems of antisocial behaviour and unauthorised encampments following the implementation of the Act.
	The Bill would require local authorities to facilitate the provision of sites for gypsies and travellers. This responds to the repeated complaints of the police that there are insufficient sites to which to direct travellers who are intent on occupying public land. The Housing Corporation would be empowered to make grants to registered social landlords to enable them to provide and manage such sites.
	The Bill would require local education authorities to develop strategic programmes to improve the educational attainment of gypsies and travellers and their children. It would also clarify the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 by acknowledging that Irish travellers constitute a racial group, as do Scottish and Welsh gypsy and traveller communities. There would also be other appropriate provisions in the Bill.
	The Bill is based on the work of the Cardiff law school and is the culmination of four years of consultation between gypsies' and other travellers' organisations, statutory and voluntary bodies such as the police and local authorities, and lawyers and planners who face the problems that arise. A schedule to the Bill would propose a code of conduct for travellers, based on best practice and on consultation with local authorities and travellers' groups.
	I submit that my Bill represents a carefully considered approach that provides equality of opportunity and equal access to civic life and social services for travellers and gypsies. It acknowledges that the threat of continuous eviction does nothing for the health and welfare of families, or for the education of children; that only 2 per cent. of travellers live to see the age of 65; and that the traveller infant mortality rate is nearly three times the national average. It recognises that where local authorities have offered suitable land sites, good relations have developed and school attendance and health have improved. Telford and Wrekin council is an example of such good practice.
	The Bill responds to the recommendation that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed in April, for member states to resolve the legal status of gypsies and travellers. The alternative is to continue to rely on laws to prevent unauthorised encampments, which the police and local authorities are at their wits' end trying to enact.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Andrew MacKay, Mr. Terry Davis, Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Julie Morgan, Mr. John Butterfill, Andrew Mackinlay, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Nick Harvey, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Bill Rammell.

Traveller Law Reform

Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to reform the law in England and Wales as it applies to gypsies and travellers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 171].

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)),
	That
	1. The matter of the draft National Health Service (Wales) Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
	2. The Committee shall meet on Tuesday 16th July at half-past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock at Westminster to consider the matter of the draft National Health Service (Wales) Bill, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

John Denham: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 9th July 2002 (Police Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) shall be varied as follows
	in the Table, in the entries in the second column relating to the second day, for the first 'Six o'clock' there shall be substituted 'Seven o'clock'.
	Briefly, there was discussion yesterday on allowing flexibility because of today's statement. The motion will achieve that.

Douglas Hogg: I rise, as I did yesterday, to speak to the timetable motion.
	This is the third programme motion relating to the Bill. The previous one was discussed yesterday, when I set out my objections to timetable motions, both in general and in particular. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat my arguments at any great length. However, it would not be right to give the Government any credit for this timetable motion, notwithstanding the fact that it moves one of the knives from 6 to 7 o'clock.
	The reason why it would not be right to give the Government any credit is as follows. If there were no timetable motion in the first place, we would not have needed the supplementary second and third motions. Owing to the intolerable habit of imposing timetable motions, the Government are obliged to come back and waste yet more time with a further such motion.
	The first decision was wrong in principle and unnecessary in practice for the reasons that I set out yesterday. Furthermore, it showed incompetence on the Government's part, because they must have known full well yesterday, when we debated the No. 2 timetable motion, that the Home Secretary would make a statement today. I was in government for many years and I have been a Member of the House for even longer, so I know perfectly well that the Government knew yesterday that the Home Secretary would make a lengthy statement today. Why on earth did yesterday's timetable motion not make proper provision, if that be what this is, for today's debate? So, we are dealing with incompetence as well as wrongness in principle.
	In any case, why should we assume that the time permitted under the No. 3 timetable motion is sufficient? On any view of the matter, the issues that we are debating are important, but we are being given just two hours in which to discuss significant constitutional measures involving a raft of amendments. Who has decided that such time is sufficient? Not us. Oh no, the Government have decided.
	What we have here is the Government coming to the House to tell us how long we, the legislature, should spend scrutinising their activities. There is absolutely no point saying that hon. Members make those decisions, because having regard to the strength of the party whip in this place, we know full well that the Executive made this decision. So, we have the profoundly unattractive spectacle of an Executive telling the legislature how long it may spend on constitutional matters of some importance.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough to inform me whether he expressed any of his concerns to any member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill?

Douglas Hogg: If the hon. Lady had heard my speech yesterday, she would appreciate that I was extremely concerned not just about the terms of the Bill but about the underlying legislation to which it refers. If she was not here yesterday, she would do well to read Hansard. If she had already done so, she would not have made an intervention that she thought would entertain the House.
	The plain truth is that this is yet another case of an oppressive and incompetent Government coming here, demanding a bit of credit, and deserving noneand we should give them none.

Graham Allen: Your predecessor in the Chair yesterday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, kindly directed me to Hansard for the purposes of calculating the amount of time the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has wasted in complaining about programme motions. A very rough calculation suggested that it was 12 hours 56 minutes, but I think I should now amend that to 13 hours.
	I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He complains about the House's time being wasted, but he is the main culprit. I wish he would be quiet and let Members get on with the Bill.

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for responding positively to suggestions made yesterday by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. He moved the programme motion in just one sentence, but he has been accused of wasting yet more time, whereas the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) took three or four minutes to make a point he had already made on a number of occasions.

John Gummer: I would have had no intention of bothering the House but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
	No job done by a Member of Parliament is more important than that of reminding the Executive that the House is supposed to scrutinise it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has written a bookI have started reading it, but have not got very farabout how we need a House of Commons and a system more redolent of the needs of the people. He might start by asking the House to do its proper job, and provide enough time for us to talk about the issues that really matter. He should be ashamed of himself for attacking my right hon. and learned Friend for performing a public good and a public service.
	Question put and agreed to

Orders of the Day
	  
	Police Reform Bill [Lords]
	  
	[2nd allotted day]

As amended in the Committee, further considered.

New Clause 1
	  
	Improvement action plans

'After section 41 of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted
	41A Improvement Action Plans
	(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State, as a consequence of a report under section 54, is satisfied in relation to any police force maintained for any police area
	(a) that the whole or any part of the force is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or
	(b) that the whole or part of the force will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of the report prepared under section 54 to the police authority which maintains the force in question, together with his reasons for considering that the conditions of subsection (1) are satisfied.
	(3) The police authority on receipt of the report, shall require the chief officer to prepare a plan ('an Improvement Action Plan') for taking remedial measures in relation to anything contained in the report.
	(4) An Improvement Action Plan shall not relate to any matters other than those in relation to which functions fall to be discharged by the chief officer of the force in question.
	(5) Any plan produced under subsection (3) shall include
	(a) provision for setting targets for addressing the issues raised in the report under section 54;
	(b) provision for setting time limits in achieving those targets;
	(c) provision for the making of progress reports to the police authority maintaining the force in question; and
	(d) provision for the duration of the plan.
	(6) The chief officer shall provide a copy of the plan to the police authority within twelve weeks of the issuing of the requirement by the authority under subsection (3).
	(7) Within twelve weeks of the end of the duration of the plan the chief officer shall report to the police authority who shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
	(8) Any report under subsection (7) shall include
	(a) an assessment of the performance of the force, in whole or in part as appropriate, against the targets set in the plan; and
	(b) an assessment of the impact of the plan on the efficiency or effectiveness of the force..'.[Mr. Letwin.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 6, in clause 5, page 5, line 35, leave out clause 5.
	Government amendments Nos. 109 and 110.
	Government amendment No. 111, in clause 5, page 6, line 1, leave out
	chief officer of police of
	and insert
	police authority responsible for maintaining.
	Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 1, before chief, insert may direct the.
	Amendment (b) to the amendment, in line 1, before police, insert shall inform the.
	Amendment No. 173, in page 6, line 1, leave out from force to end of line 5 and insert
	'of the contents of the report and the reasons for the statements made under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)'.
	Government amendments Nos. 112 and 113.
	Government amendment No. 114, page 6, line 8, at end insert
	'(3A) If a police authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the chief officer of police of the force in question to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the police authority for that authority to consider.
	(3B) The police authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3A) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.
	(3C) If the police authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3A), it must consult with the chief officer of police.'.
	Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 1, leave out from (3A) to that and insert
	'When a police authority is informed by the Secretary of State under subsection (2)'.
	Amendment (b) to the amendment, in line 3, leave out of it and insert
	'a plan (an action plan)'.
	Amendment (c) to the amendment, in line 5, leave out subsection (3B).
	Amendment No. 174, in page 6, line 9, leave out lines 9 to 16.
	Government amendment No. 115.
	Government amendment No. 116, in clause 5, page 6, line 17, leave out chief officer of any and insert
	police authority responsible for maintaining a.
	Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 1, before chief, insert
	'giving a direction under this section to the'.
	Amendment (b) to the amendment, in line 1, before police, insert informing the.
	Government amendment No. 117, in clause 5, page 6, line 18, leave out police authority maintaining and insert
	chief officer of police of.
	Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 1, after maintaining, insert
	'that force that he has given that direction.'.
	Amendment (b) to the amendment, in line 2, after second of, insert
	'that force that he has so informed the authority.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 118 to 129.
	Amendment No. 8, in schedule 1, page 106, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 on page 107 and insert
	31A NCIS Improvement Action Plans
	(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State, as a consequence of an inspection report, is satisfied
	(a) that the whole or any part of NCIS is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or
	(b) that the whole or part of NCIS will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with Scottish Ministers, send a copy of the report to the NCIS Service Authority together with his reasons for considering that the conditions of subsection (1) are satisfied.
	(3) The Service Authority, on receipt of the report, shall require the Director General of NCIS to prepare a plan (an Improvement Action Plan) for taking remedial measures in relation to anything contained in the report.
	(4) An Improvement Action Plan shall not relate to any matters other than those in relation to which functions fall to be discharged by the Director General of NCIS.
	(5) Any plan produced under subsection (3) shall include
	(a) provision for setting targets for addressing the issues raised in the report under section 54;
	(b) provision for setting time limits in achieving those targets;
	(c) provision for the making of progress reports to the NCIS Service Authority; and
	(d) provision for the duration of the plan.
	(6) The Director General shall provide a copy of the plan to the Service Authority within twelve weeks of the issuing of the requirement by the Service Authority under subsection (3).
	(7) Within twelve weeks of the end of the duration of the plan the Director General shall report to the Service Authority who shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
	(8) Any report under subsection (6) shall include
	(a) an assessment of the performance of the force, in whole or in part as appropriate, against the targets set in the plan; and
	(b) an assessment of the impact of the plan on the efficiency or effectiveness of the force.
	(9) In this section 'an inspection report' means a report under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16), section 33 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77) or section 41 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32)..'.
	Government amendments Nos. 131 to 149.
	Amendment No. 9, page 107, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 109 and insert
	'76A NCS Improvement Action Plans
	(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State, as a consequence of a report under section 54 of the Police Act 1996, is satisfied
	(a) that the whole or any part of the National Crime Squad is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or
	(b) that the whole or part of the National Crime Squad will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of the report to the NCS Service Authority together with his reasons for considering that the conditions of subsection (1) are satisfied.
	(3) The Service Authority shall require the Director General of the National Crime Squad to prepare a plan (an Improvement Action Plan) for taking remedial measures in relation to anything contained in the report under section 54.
	(4) An Improvement Action Plan shall not relate to any matters other than those in relation to which functions fall to be discharged by the Director General of the National Crime Squad.
	(5) Any plan produced under subsection (3) shall include
	(a) provision for setting targets for addressing the issues raised in the report under section 54;
	(b) provision for setting time limits in achieving those targets;
	(c) provision for the making of progress reports to the NCS Service Authority; and
	(d) provision for the duration of the plan.
	(6) The Director General shall provide a copy of the plan to the Service Authority within twelve weeks of the issuing of the requirement by the Service Authority under subsection (3).
	(7) Within twelve weeks of the end of the duration of the plan the Director General shall report to the Service Authority who shall send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
	(8) Any report under subsection (7) shall include
	(a) an assessment of the performance of the National Crime Squad, in whole or in part as appropriate, against the targets set in the plan; and
	(b) an assessment of the impact of the plan on the efficiency or effectiveness of the National Crime Squad.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 150 to 168.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 109, line 21, leave out or 31A.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 109, line 23, leave out
	'and the Director General of NCIS have each'
	and insert has.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 109, line 29, leave out
	'and the Director General of NCIS have each'
	and insert has.
	Government amendments Nos. 169 and 170.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 109, leave out lines 36 to 40.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 109, line 45, leave out or 31A.
	Amendment No. 15, in page 111, line 11, leave out or 76A.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 111, line 13, leave out from Authority to been in line 14 and insert has.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 111, line 19, leave out from Authority to been in line 20 and insert has.
	Government amendment No. 171.
	Amendment No. 18, in page 111, leave out lines 26 to 30.
	Government amendment No. 172.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 111, line 35, leave out or 76A.

Oliver Letwin: As that formidable list amply confirms, we are in the presence of a Government who have made considerable progress towards a position for which we have long argued in relation to the Home Secretary's effortsoriginally in clause 5to control the operations of police forces and parts of police forces.
	We strongly welcome the Government's move; what we must ask now is whether it is sufficient, and I have to say that I do not think it is. I hope that the spirit in which we engage in today's discussion will be reflected in further consideration by the Government once the Bill returns to the House of Lords, whence it emanated. I also hope that we will reach a consensus in a very few days, and that it will achieve what both we and the Liberal Democrats have sought to achieve throughout. Indeed, that is consistent with the Government's explanation of their intentions. That fact alone gives me hope that we will reach a consensus.
	I should make it clear at the outset that I do not wish to press new clause 1, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, to a vote, given where we stand today. Rather, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will find the means to allow the House to vote on amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 111, which can stand for the other amendments to the Government amendments.
	We are talking about a matter that relates in part to practice and in part to principle. It is important to restate briefly the principle at the heart of the matter and to rehearse the reasons why, from the point of view of practice, the Government have not come quite close enough to establishing the principle in law. The fundamental principle that we are dealing with is the operational independence of chief constables. The Minister and the Home Secretary have repeatedly said that they have no intention of compromising the operational independence of chief constables. It is therefore important that we explain what we mean by such operational independence, and why it is important in the sense in which we mean it.
	A chief constable holds an office the importance of which has been reiterated not in the past few years alone, but over decades and centuries. In fact, that office stretches back far beyond the beginnings of the formal police forces with which we now deal. The fundamental principle of the operational independence of a chief constable is that a subject of Her Majesty will always be subject to the attentions of those acting in pursuit of enforcing the law, and never to the attentions of those acting in pursuit of a political decree. That is the single most important principle of the rule of law in this country; indeed, it is common ground on which the Opposition, Ministers and Labour Members do not disagree.

Graham Allen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving way. Will he address the very important questionhe may well be coming to itof the distinction between operational and non-operational? The concept of an operational requirement has been respected by politicians for many years, but is it respected by senior police officers? The boundary between what is and is not operational is increasingly being pushed back. It is not defined in the Bill or in any of the amendments, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will turn his mind to where that boundary should lie, and whether it should be defined in law.

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is on to something deep and important. It is also very relevant to my discussion, but if I may, I shall make a slight excursion in order to discuss it. I recognise that there is a difference between issues of general strategy relating to a police force, and operational issues relating to, say, the arrest of, or surveillance of, a particular individual. That is an enormously important distinction. Of course, a police force's general strategy is not at the core of our rule of law; it is a practical matter, so to speak. However, the assertion of the right of every subject of Her Majesty not to be interfered with on the basis of a particular politically originated attack by the police is at the centre of our rule of law.
	I recognise the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw between operational and non-operational issues. However, we can see why Ministers have not attempted to define that difference, which is why, despite having considered the issue, we have not sought to do so either. If we could define a proper distinction, we could address at least part of the problem of principle in a way that might have achieved consensus at an earlier stage.
	It is difficult to establish a proper definition because strategy melds into operation in a way that is difficult for legislation to disentangle in advance. Let us take the case of a particular frustration that a particular Home Secretary at some future date might have about the prevalence of a particular kind of crime in a particular place. That would be a reasonable preoccupation for a Home Secretary. Local Members of Parliament and others might be lobbying him to do something about the situation, and that situation might affect large numbers of people, which would require the local police force to have a strategy to address it.
	A Home Secretary who felt that he could determine the strategies of that police force might reasonably take steps to ensure that those strategies were, in his view, appropriate. However, there might also be specific ringleaders of the disturbance that the locals were complaining about, and the Home Secretary might feel that as part of defining the strategy, he ought to define the targets of the strategy, because otherwise it might be almost impossible to assert that the strategy should be thus, rather than otherwise.
	So we move almost invisibly from the strategic, or non-operational, to the operational. I dare not have confidence that we shall be able so to define it[Interruption.] The Minister, from a sedentary position, seems to be suggesting that he has achieved that miracle. I, however, dare not imagine that we, sitting in this House this evening, are capable of envisaging all the circumstances that could make that definition so slippery.
	I should therefore prefer to place my faithand I hope that the House will do the samein an effort to distance politicians from all the actions of police forces, both operational and non-operational. That is a sure way of achieving the goal of principle, which is to distance politicians, always and irrevocably, from operational matters.

Graham Allen: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but will he forgive me for pursuing the matter a little further? Unless we put into the Bill a definition of at least part of what we all agree is operational and non-operational, the very thing that he fears will happen. Home Secretaries of all political colours will not only set targets, but will ensure that money is allocated to meeting them, so it is almost inevitable that chief constables and local police officers will have to pursue those targets. In that way there is interference, almost by stealth, in the operational objectives of local police forces. If we were now to debate honestly what is operational and what is not, the difference would be clearer not only to us but to officers on the ground and senior officers in local constabularies.

Oliver Letwin: I take the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but perhaps we should continue that argument at another time. I certainly take his point about grants; indeed, it leads to the argument that I am about to advance. Because of their grant-making powers, Ministers, alas, almost inevitably have at their disposal the ability to exercise considerable direction over the activitiesif I may use that neutral termof the police forces of England and Wales.
	I know that the Minister will say that this is merely a matter of offering a helping hand in co-ordination, or some such stuff, but even today we can see that in pursuit of the particular goal of fulfilling the Prime Minister's commitments about reducing street crime by September, a group of Ministersa posse, if that is the appropriate collective nounhas been put on to the job of trying to ensure that specific bits of specific police forces live up to the standards that the Prime Minister has set them. That was not achieved by the use of statutory powers. Incidentally, it is an interesting question whether that was ultra vires, and that may be subject to review by the judges. However, it is clear that it was achieved by informal means. Things were said or implied that suggested to the police forces concerned that it would be to their benefit to co-operate, and co-operate they have. That could be extended more widely.

John Denham: The right hon. Gentleman is on the verge of making what I would regard as a very serious allegationthat in some way chief constables in the 10 forces have been intimidated or bullied into taking part in the street crime initiative. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to leave the House with that impression, but it is certainly the impression that he has created in my mind.

Oliver Letwin: I would not say intimidated or bullied, because the Home Secretary and the Minister are much too charming for that. However, the fact is that Ministers have an enormous degree of power over police authorities and forces. Those authorities and forces are not naive. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, they know where the money comes from. Nothing can be done about that and I do not propose that we should suddenly remove the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers from their role in funding police forces. I recognise that that would require long debate and vast reorganisation.
	Under current circumstancesand for many years, because present Ministers did not invent the systemHome Secretaries and their Ministers wield vast influence over police forces. That does not have to be a matter of intimidation. Subtle hints about direction from Home Secretaries over many years lead to significant responses by police forces. It is from that starting point that we need to examine the likely practical effect of measures in this Bill.

Kevan Jones: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but is he actually saying that under no circumstances should the Home Secretary or Parliament have any control over a chief constable or a local police authority? If that is the case, how are chief constables or police authorities to be democratically accountable to Parliament?

Oliver Letwin: I fear that the hon. Gentleman and I have different views on the current arrangements. Indeed, I fear that his view differs from that of Ministers and, indeed, the progress of our history. It is not the case that police chief constables or their forces are democratically accountable to Parliament. They are not. Nor are they, and nor have they ever been, accountable to Home Secretaries under the law or any constitutional theory. Police forces are accountable to police authorities, and that is why they are called police authorities. Those police authorities are accountable, to a degreealthough not, in my view, to a sufficient degreeto their local communities.
	The tripartite structure so carefully established gives the Home Secretary strictly circumscribed statutory roles, which I know he finds frustrating. However, because he is the de facto possessor of the purse strings, he has a wider degree of influence than his statutory role would suggest. The issue that we have been debating for some months is whether we should include in the Bill a statutory platform that will tend to increase what is the already great influence of the centre over the police forces of England and Wales.

Kevan Jones: Was not it the previous Conservative Government who put in place the current structure of police authorities, which previously had a larger democratic element in the numbers of local councillors who sat on them? Is the Conservative party now proposing directly elected police authorities and chief constables?

Oliver Letwin: It is perfectly true that the Conservative party is reviewing its policies on and attitudes to the local accountability of police forces. As we do so, we are conscious of the need to maintain the operational independence of chief constables from their authoritiesthat is another important pointbecause we are desperately keen for the professionals to be able to get on with the job.
	We recognise that the degrees of decentralisation and local accountability need review. Although those questions are germane, we are, alas, considering a provision in the Bill that proposes the reverse: the establishment of a platform upon which the centre can do more to influence the police forces of the country. That is what we need to debate.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As usual, he argues his case carefully and succinctly. He made a point about control and power from the centre, but I did not perceive that he was saying that any threat or undue influence was being imposed. He said, rightly, that it is a question of finance. Does he agree that the crime fighting fund is a good example of the way in which finance seems to control the issue, as police authorities will not be able to tap into it unless they maintain a few extra officers?

Oliver Letwin: I agree that that is a good example. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, and that the Minister will take the point also, that I am not asserting that everything that the Home Secretaryeither the present one or any of his predecessorshas sought to achieve as a result of using that influence is bad. Such an assertion would be false. In fact, I am rather in favour of some of the effects of the crime fighting fund. The problem is that good effects that are brought about by means that may be questionable can have long-term, unanticipated effects. That is my fear.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but he is talking about structures and the relationship between the Home Office and police authorities and chief constables. However, people in my constituency and in many others throughout the country are primarily concerned with the efficiency of the police force that serves them. The most recent available performance indicators show that his police authority is doing remarkably well in comparison with mine. I wish that my constituents were as fortunate as his. Is not the aim of new clause 1 simply to improve the service that I get? Would not it challenge my police authority to provide services that are similar to those provided elsewherespecifically in his constituency?

Oliver Letwin: I recognise that the motives that the hon. Lady ascribes to the Home Secretary and to the Minister are correct. Throughout this important debate, I have acknowledged that the sole desire of the Home Secretary and the Minister is to exert pressure for what will be, in their view, better and more efficient policing in parts of the country where it is less good than it should be. I accept that, and I have never asserted anything to the contrary.
	I understand that Home Secretaries occupy a high office and feel frustrated when they pull levers and little appears to happen quickly at the other end. That frustrates them, not least because gadflies like me accuse them of failing to produce good results, and they do not understand why we should then deprive them of the means to achieve those results.
	I understand that logic, but the problem is that that approach does not work in the long run. That is partly because it compromises the principle that politicians should be kept out of the process, which is more precious than anything else.
	There are also practical reasons why the approach will not work, which I will address briefly. Our assertionwe may be wrong, but it is based on deep intuitionsis that the professionals will become progressively demoralised, and that policing in England and Wales will get worse as a result. That will happen if efforts, however well intentioned, are made by the central bureaucracy to controlthrough targets, monitoring and interference from the centrehow those police forces go about their work.
	There is a charge sheet to be answered, not of disreputable motive but of effect. When the Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, he had a genuine passion to improve education. He sought to achieve that through subjecting the teaching profession to vastly increased targets, monitoring and interference from the centre. I do not doubt his motive, but the result has been catastrophic. Teachers the length and breadth of England and Wales are leaving the profession because they are worried about the level to which they are forced to become creatures of bureaucracy rather than independent professionals. I know that there is a disagreement, but it is genuinethis is our passionately held view. We believe that the same will happen to our police forces if the same attitude is taken to governing them. There is an issue of principle and of practice here.

Graham Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Letwin: Before I give way, which I shall for the very last time, I should add that one has to ask how effective the Home Office will be in carrying out this task, even if one were to assume away the issue of principle and the question of whether the professionals will be demoralised.
	There are many extremely intelligent and hard-working people in the Home Office. I know that they will do their best, but the record is not good. The Home Office has not proved good at administering matters, and until it improves I do not believe that there are grounds for putting our faith in that body to administer the police forces of England and Wales. Those are the three essentials of our argument.

Graham Allen: The right hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. I wish to pursue the same point and ensure that he is as rigorous in his argument as he usually is. We all concede that politicians should not interfere in some operational matters. The right hon. Gentleman must surely concede that it is also just and proper for this House, its representatives and Ministers to have a hand in non-operational or strategic policing matters. To ensure that his argument is as coherent as he would like, it is incumbent upon him at some point, whether he is in opposition or even in government, to define the areas that are non-operational and strategic. Will he consider that issue, because Members on both sides of the House must confront it at some point, particularly when chief officers are consistently pressing back the boundary?

Oliver Letwin: I hope to satisfy the hon. Gentleman with this: we will consider that issue further. However, in the context of how far central control has already exceeded its limits, how far we need to rebuild local control and reassert independences already eroded, I accept that we need to think about the distinction between operational and non-operational issues.
	I apologise to the House for taking so long, but I have tried to handle objections as they arise. Let me come briefly to why we remain dissatisfied with the admittedly beneficial moves that the Government have already made. We are concerned that the Bill creates a platform that will enable the Home Secretary of the day to establish greater and greater control over the police forces. The danger seems to lie not so much in the narrow interpretation of the wording, but in whether the process that is being established draws Ministers closer to the scene of the action and inevitably means that forces increasingly look to them as soon as the process is triggered.
	We have no problem with the principle of the Secretary of State triggering an action plan or a report. We have had some hesitations about that, but we have got over them. In our new clause and, more germanely, in our amendments to the Government amendments, we have accepted that the Home Secretary should be able to trigger an action plan for a force that is failing in the Home Secretary's reasoned opinion. That is common ground between ourselves and Liberal Democrat Members.
	The difficulties arise from the fact that the way in which the Government have constructed the provision, even in their new amendments, will give the initiative throughout to Ministers and will not give the police authority a separate statutory initiative. That is the critical difference between our constructionswhether in new clause 1, or in the amendments to the Government amendmentsand those of the Minister. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps we will be persuaded by his arguments, but the Secretary of State will remain at the centre of the web to a considerable degree given the way in which he has drafted his amendments.
	In the Secretary of State's new version, proposed new section 41A of the Police Act 1996 will read:
	The Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining the force to submit to the Secretary of State a plan for taking remedial measures.
	What is going on herethe Minister has said this on the radiois that he is using the concept of direction to make the police authority send something to him. The initiative will lie with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will continue to be a party with whom the authorityhence, indirectly, the police chiefwill negotiate.
	Subsection (7) will state:
	On considering an action plan submitted to him in accordance with a direction under this section the Secretary of State may if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan . . . are inadequate, notify the police authority and the chief officer of the force in question of that opinion and of his reasons.
	Yet again, the Secretary of State will take the initiative. If he does not like what he gets, he will go back for more. I am not saying that any of that is malign. I am saying that the Government amendments will not quite distance Ministers from the preparation of the action plans, which is what we are trying to achieve, in contrast to the Government.

Douglas Hogg: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument. I do not want to be unduly critical of him, but even if he considers new clause 1, does he not realise that, in fact, the initiative lies with the Home Secretary and that on receipt of a copy of the report from the Home Secretary, the police authority
	shall require the chief officer
	to carry out remedial work of various kinds? Surely it would be better by far to give the police authority only an ability to direct the chief officer. In other words, the police authority should not be obliged to act on the Home Secretary's instructions.

Oliver Letwin: My right hon. and learned Friend usefully chides me. We have long and hard considered that issue. I have to admit, to my undying shame and before the conscience that my right hon. and learned Friend constitutes, that we have made concessions to the positions that Ministers have taken in pursuit of consensus. I accept that, but I am conscious that this is an important Bill and that ping-pong between the House and another place is to be avoided if at all possible.
	We have consciously gone out of our way in drafting the new clause to make moves towards the Government's position, as they have tried to make moves towards ours in their amendments. I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's point that we have perhaps gone further than we would have wished as a result, but my point is that the Government amendment presses that issue further. It is more true in their amendments than in our new clause or than in the clause as amended by our amendments to the Government amendments that the Secretary of State is a player, an actor in the drama.
	Our fear is that a Secretary of State, who is already endowed with great powers to influence by virtue of the powers of the purse string, will be able, if he is an actor in the drama, to be the playwright or the producer, too. Rather than merely being an actor, we fear that he will turn himself, by dint of his great financial powers, intoif I may adopt another metaphorthe puppeteer.
	That danger takes us straight back to all three questions that we raised: the question of principle; the question of deprofessionalisation; and the question of whether the Home Office will be good at administering. We want to try to make sure that we do not let the Bill become a platform for the Secretary of State to become involved, as the puppeteer, in a vital dimension of policing. When Ministers consider the matter further, as we progress to the next stages of the Bill, I hope that they will go one step further and accept either our amendments to the Government amendments or something very similar.

John Denham: As this is a substantial group of Government amendments, it may helpalthough I am never quite sure about the conduct of this type of debateif I set out the Government's position, so that the parameters of the debate are clear. It is probably true that the level of personal respect between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is about as high as one gets between two different Front-Bench teams. This has not been one of the right hon. Gentleman's best afternoons so far, however, and I cannot say that he brought to these issues the clarity to which we have often been used in previous debates.
	In summary, the right hon. Gentleman did two things. He spent about 20 minutesalbeit that he spent much of it answering interventionsdealing with a figment of his imagination: the fantasy that everything in the Bill, by implication, represents the Home Secretary's desire to run everything from Whitehall, nationalise the police force and so on. By and large, he avoided dealing with the issue of substance in the narrow circumstances that are covered by the Bill. I will return to that in a moment. Nothing in the issues that we are debating or in the Government amendments provides the platform that the right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to resist. They deal with a narrow set of circumstances, and do not enable a Home Secretary to build on that outside them.
	The right hon. Gentleman was concerned about deprofessionalisation. One reason why there is such widespread support in the police service for the great thrust of the police reform White Paper and the Bill is that it will bring about the best and most widespread professionalisationand further professionalisationof the police force for many years. Everything in the reform programmethe support for the police service and for the national centre of policing excellence, which is part of Centrex, the agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers about how it will chair the steering committee that oversees its work programme and professionally validates codes of practice, and our commitment to the development of professional skills in investigation, leadership development and trainingpoints to a Government who admire the professionalism of our police service and who want to work with it to extend that professionalism. We need to be judged by what we are doing rather than by the right hon. Gentleman's fears, which I do not accept.
	I want to address the specific issue, as the Opposition's position on it is still far from clear. The entire purpose of the intervention power is to cater for the exceptional circumstances in which a force or part of a force fails to provide the quality of service that local communities have the right to expect. It is common ground that the chief officer and the police authority are in the front line of addressing problems of poor performance. We would expect them to take the necessary remedial action. We have made it clear that the measures in clause 5 would be a last resort or long stop if existing mechanisms had failed to deliver the required improvements in service.
	I suppose that the one thing that I can be pleased about after this long parliamentary deliberation is that, in the new clause, the Opposition have at last accepted, after months of denying it, that circumstances could exist in which local remedies had failed and further measures needed to be taken.

Elfyn Llwyd: Although I do not expect the Minister to name names, will he tell us how many police forces in England and Wales he deems to be under-performing or not doing their work properly?

John Denham: There is no list of under-performing police forces. Despite the travesty of a report in a national newspaper today, we are seeking with the police service to find a much more balanced way of assessing the performance of police forces. They frequently tell us that they are measured over only a narrow part of the wide range of activities and services that they are required to provide to the public. I will not stand here and say that I have a list of failing police forces; I do not.
	When local remedies and other available mechanisms have failed, the basic principle is how we create an effective mechanism for intervention.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill's purpose is to try to improve performance across all police authorities in a variety of areas? I have criticised my police authority on aspects of its operation but, in others, it is an exemplar and offers a beacon of excellence for other police authorities to follow.

John Denham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The police service is committed to delivery and, in general, if a force recognises that its performance in a particular area is not as good as that of another force, its first instinct is to find out what the other force is doing and to go off and do it. The whole thrust behind the national centre of policing excellence and, if necessary, the codes of practice, is to have proper structures to enable a force to do that. We also want to construct something that we do not have at the moment, namely a robust system of enabling a police force or basic command unit to compare itself with another. That is lacking in the current performance indicators, and we are working on such a system.
	The dilemma that we sought to address in clause 5 was what would happen in circumstances of the deep and persistent failure that I described. The Bill originally proposed a mechanism for the Home Secretary to direct a chief officer to prepare an action plan to address the identified failings. I did not, and do not, share the belief that that fundamentally challenged the tripartite structure, not least because the mechanism could come into play only when it was clear that the two local legs of the structure had failed to tackle the problems. Furthermore, given the safeguards in the original clause, which are repeated in the amendments, I do not think that the proposal was a fundamental threat to operational independence. It certainly does notthis is explicitly ruled outinvolve the type of targeting of individuals that the shadow Home Secretary implied in his speech.
	None the less, we need to find a way forward and we want to try to accommodate the concerns that have been raised. Provided that the House applies the following test, we can move forward: in the case of failure, will the Home Secretary have the capacity to take effective action and the ability to ensure that effective action is taken? The proposed changes, although quite radical in relation to some of our original proposals, ensure that such action can be taken. That is critical, because we must be fundamentally concerned about those members of the public who, by definition, do not receive the standard of service that they have a right to expect.
	The amendments make significant changes. We accept that the trigger for intervention must be a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. It will sometimes delay action if adverse information has to be confirmed by the HMIC, but it is clearly a reassurance that none of the powersthe right hon. Gentleman did not mention thiscan be used unless the seriousness of the situation is confirmed by the independent inspectorate. It is not a case of the Home Secretary taking open-ended powers to intervene in a force because he does not think that things are going well or he has read an adverse report in a newspaper. The independent inspectorate has to confirm the problem, and that is important.

Oliver Letwin: I accept that that is an important safeguard, but can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee, in the light of the powers that we are discussing, that no informal arrangements would be made under which the Secretary of State could suggest to the police force in question that it would be a good idea to provide an informal action plan in advance of requesting the formal action plan, much as the acceptable behaviour contract is informal and the antisocial behaviour order lies behind it as a threat? Is he maintaining that the Home Office will never try to use such an apparatus to widen the scope of the powers?

John Denham: I do not think that that could be done. Nothing can happen without confirmation of the problem by the inspectorate. If a Home Secretary went to a police force and said that the Department did not like what it was doing, any chief constable who was confident about the service that he was delivering and the competence of his force would know that the inspectorate would back him against the Home Secretary. We argued earlier for flexibility. The defence that has been built in is profound for a chief constable who thinks that he might be bullied, coerced or whatevernot that I think that that would happen. The chief constable knows that the Home Secretary has no power to act unless the inspectorate confirms the nature of a problem. That is important.

Graham Allen: I hope that my right hon. Friend and hon. Members who served on the Committee will forgive me if I ask a simple question, which I am sure was covered in Committee. The action plan applies to failing police forces. It does not address the problem of forces that are failing not in an operational sense, but in a non- operational sense with regard to the strategic decisions that they take which fly in the face of the Home Secretary's responsibilities; hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that he can rightly say certain things.
	My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am referring to community policing. That is a strategic, non- operational matter in its generality, yet a police force could decide not to do it. It may not be failingoperationally, it may be an effective force, and the one I have in mind isbut the chief constable of that force can happily cast community policing aside. Am I correct in saying that the Bill does not cover that problem?

John Denham: My hon. Friend is not right to say that the issue is not covered in the Bill, although it is not addressed in clause 5. The clause is not intended to be used if there is genuine disagreement on how the chief constable chooses to police Nottingham. We are talking about failure arising from serious problems in the performance of a force.
	The Bill allows for the development of evidence-based codes of practice. If they are given legal status, the chief officer would have to have regard to them. He would not have to follow them to the letter, however, and would have the discretion to ignore them if he felt that that was appropriate. The development of those codes of practice, agreed in the House, can take place only if evidence exists to support them. We would not want to codify the idea of having a lot of police beat officers unless there was evidence that a particular way of policing delivered that.
	It is important to make it clear that our conception of intervention has always been based on the idea that a failure of outcomes by a force would concern us, and intervention is not, a priori, an attempt to regulate the inputs made by a police officer. In every part of the system in the Bill, the point at which attention will focus on how a police force operates is when there are concerns about what is being achieved for the public in reducing crime, tackling criminality and dealing with the fear of crime.

Graham Allen: If I understand my right hon. Friend correctly, the matters that we all accept are the Home Secretary's responsibility because they are non-operational and strategic cannot be interfered with when a chief constable chooses to fly in the face of concerns, but the matters that many of us feel are operational may be interfered with, through a local action plan, if the outcomes are not those that we would like.

John Denham: My hon. Friend is not following what I am saying. From its very inception, clause 5 has ruled out interference in operational matters concerning particular individuals or operations. It contains a reserve powerthe power of last resortto be used if a force, or part of it, persistently under-performs. We have to separate that in our minds from the question of whether Nottinghamshire, for example, chooses to adopt a particular pattern of community policing. The clause is not designed to enable the Home Secretary to interfere in that, nor does the Home Secretary aspire to make such decisions.
	In future, where best practice is clearly set out on the basis of evidence, as would be the case with the ACPO firearms manual, for example, it will have the potential to become a code of practice, with a legal status, to which the chief constable will have to have regard. However, he will have discretion about the extent to which he wants to take it into account. I hope that I have made that point. It is important to understand the narrowness of this issue.

Simon Hughes: Ministers have always had informal contacts with ACPO, chairs of police authorities and senior police officers. Has any work been done that shows either that such dialogue has failed to deliver the changes in particular authorities that Home Secretaries have looked forthe hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. CurtisThomas) cited one exampleor that the intervention of the inspectorate has not, of itself, produced the improvements desired by the Home Secretary and the wider community? [Interruption.]

John Denham: I am not going to follow the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Dorset and name police forces. There is a recognition that circumstances can arise where, as a last resort, this type of intervention is necessary. I agree that one would expect intervention, the support of professional colleagues and the sharing of best practice to come into play in the vast majority of cases. Clearly, we should all rely on that process to be in the front line in improving performance. Indeed, the biggest drive towards improving performance will come from the sharing of best practice in the police force.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?

John Denham: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I must make progress. I am taking even longer than the right hon. Member for West Dorset did. [Interruption.] He says that it is not possible, but we will see how long I continue. I may take more interventions later.
	There is a narrow way into the power, and its use has to be confirmed by the inspectorate. That probably protects the Home Secretary, but it certainly protects the chief constable, and we have been happy to concede that change.
	It is our view that the Home Secretary should be able to direct the police authority, which will in turn direct the chief officer to draft an action plan. As the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise, the principle of the Home Secretary having the power to direct the police authority was established by the previous Conservative Government in section 40 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?

John Denham: I should like to make a little progress before we hear a quote from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is ready to go with that quote, and ultimately I will not disappoint him as he has taken the trouble to carry it around ever since the Bill was in Committee in case he got the opportunity to use it again.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has pointed out, the Opposition themselves have conceded that the police authority should have the right to direct the chief officer.
	I confess to some confusion about the intent of new clause 1. It appears that the Opposition want to say that the Secretary of State should not direct the police authority, but that on receipt of a brown envelope containing an HMIC report from the Secretary of State, the police authority would have to direct the chief officer. I am not sure whether that is deliberate ambiguity or pure sophistry. Simply by cause and effect, the new clause would mean that the Home Secretary was directing the police authority. It would be better to say so, and that is what we have said in the Bill.
	If the Opposition amendments are intended to create a situation where the Home Secretary can put the HMIC report in the post but the police authority can decide whether to require the chief officer to take action, that would be unsatisfactory in the narrow circumstances that we are talking aboutthose in which the police authority and the chief constable have, between them, failed to deal with the local problem of performance in the force. The right hon. Gentleman has got himself and his party into a tangle over the new clause.

Douglas Hogg: I rather share the Minister's criticism of the new clause. None the less, he will keep it in mind that the powers that we discussed yesterday included a power for the Home Secretary to suspend a chief officer or to cause his resignation or retirement. That, taken in conjunction with the power that we are discussing, gives the Home Secretary considerable powers to impose on the police authority an improvement plan or a change in regime.

John Denham: As we discussed yesterday, I do not share that analysis because the power to seek to remove a chief officer has been in legislation since the 1960s, and suspension deals merely with the period before that process. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman at all, although I recognise the concern as one that was raised by the Chief Police Officers Staff Association and that we need to try to address in discussions about the protocol. The measure does not achieve that fundamental shift in power to the Home Secretary which critics have identified.

Oliver Letwin: I have to say, regrettably, that the Minister's analysis of the logic begins to persuade me that we have gone too far towards his position in using the word shall in our amendments. Perhaps may would be the better word. We had hoped that we could go as far as shall and still preserve the idea that, because the direction from the Secretary of State would be absent, a whole series of sub-directions that could be contained in the direction would also be absent, and that we would at least have an independent police authority that was the sole source of direction.
	If the Minister, on the advice that he has been able to receive, takes the view that if the police authority were given a statutory duty to direct, the Secretary of State would in effect have the same power to circumscribe the character of that direction as he would have if he had the power of direction itself, I fear that we may have gone too far. We may have to ask our colleagues in another place to move back from the position that we have established. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether what he said was meant, or whether he was merely engaging in a playful piece of debate, because if that is the way that he reads the Bill, I will not rest content with the way in which we have tried to amend it.

John Denham: This is an important exchange. It is important to clarify exactly what the Opposition are saying. I fear that if we had formulated our clause as the right hon. Gentleman has formulated his, we would have been attacked by him for attempting to take a power of direction without being clear about it.
	It seems to follow logically from the right hon. Gentleman's position that, on receipt of the report, the police authority shall act. That is how we understand what he said. I do not take that to mean that the Secretary of State is dictating the content of the action plan.
	I now come on to the nub of the issue. Clearly, it would be nonsense for the Home Secretary to be aware of a major problem in a police force, for that to be confirmed to him by HMIC, for HMIC to say, I can't think of anything else to do about this force other than for us to intervene, for the Home Secretary to send all that off in an envelope to the police authority, and for the police authority to refuse to do anything about it. That would not be a tenable sequence of events.
	The issue, thenthis is the third area in which we have made a significant change to our original proposalis the content of the plan. It is clear in our proposals that the plan should be produced by the chief officer, and that it should undergo the normal consultation with the police authority that would be involved in producing, say, an annual plan, which is written by the chief officer in consultation with the police authority. If the authority wants to make changes, those must be discussed with the chief officer. That has been in the legislation for some time in respect of annual plans.
	The amendments that we tabled remove any suggestion that the Home Secretary can dictate what is in the plan or rewrite it. They bring this part of the Bill into line with the legislation on the three-year policing plans that we discussed in Committee. The Home Secretary could comment, but could not rewrite the plan. That is extremely important. It means that the Home Secretary can make his position clear, although he could presumably always get his hands on a copy and comment. It would be much better if there were legislative provision for that. The police authority would have to consider the Home Secretary's comments, but there would be no binding instruction for the Home Secretary to specify the form in which the plan must be written.
	Given that there is now common ground that, in the event of a problem being confirmed by HMIC, action must be taken, our proposals should be acceptable to the Opposition. Yes, the police authority will require an action plan, but it will have the same involvement with the action plan as it would with an annual plan. The Home Secretary will be able to commentafter all, he initiated the actionbut not rewrite the plan.
	That will achieve the purpose of making sure that something is done for the public. We hope that hon. Members will accept that that is a reasonable move away from the position in the original draft of the Bill, and that they will support it.

Oliver Letwin: Of course we accept that that was a major move, which we welcomed. May I draw the Minister's attention back to subsection (2) and ask him to clarify how, in his version, he imagines the original direction from the Secretary of State will be couched? As I read subsection (2), in stating that the Secretary of State may direct and that in that direction he may direct the force in question
	in relation to anything that the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters as to which he is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1),
	the subsection legitimises the Secretary of State giving a specific and detailed set of directions to the police authority about exactly what is to be contained in the action plan.
	I accept the Minister's point that the action plan may not conform to that direction, and that he has removed the power that previously existed for the Secretary of State to force a revision, but he surely sees that, endowed with the powers that the Secretary of State otherwise has, a detailed and specific set of provisions about what is to be contained in the action plan is quite a different thing from circumstances in which the Secretary of State merely triggers the preparation of an action plan under the aegis of the authority.

John Denham: The debate is proving useful. We have focused on a set of words that has not previously been the focus of particular attention. In drafting this part of clause 5, and in clause 4, which we discussed Upstairs, we were able to point out that we had significantly constrained the Secretary of State's powers to direct a police authority, compared with the powers given by the Conservative Government.
	As we pointed out in Committee, those powers did not even require the Secretary of State to require action relevant to the problem identified by HMIC. HMIC could identify a problem relating to a collapsing drugs strategy, and the Secretary of State would be able to use the powers in the Police Act 1996 to direct the police authority to urge the chief constable to do more about road traffic. We have narrowed the remit of the Secretary of State to make sure that it is relevant to the problems identified by HMIC.
	I envisage that the Home Secretary would be in receipt of a report from HMIC. It is always dangerous to speculate on such occasions, but, to help the discussion, let us assume that HMIC has concluded that a particular area is awash with class A drugs, that the chief constable refuses to devote any resources to tackling the problem, that all the interventions have failed to alter the situation, and that an effective response by the police force was therefore required. The report from HMIC would presumably analyse the problem, and probably indicate the areas in which action should be taken to address the problem.
	It has been our assumption that that would be the basis of the Secretary of State's direction to the police authority. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be worried that the wording of the clause would allow the Secretary of State to add an eight-page codicil elaborating on the strategy that the police force should adopt. The right hon. Gentleman knows the evolution of the clause. Earlier drafts of this and other clauses contained explicit powers for the Secretary of State to do just such a thing. We have removed those.
	We may not be able to resolve the matter sensibly on the Floor of the House tonight, but if we have narrowed that down as the area of concern, there should be a way forward that will enable the problem that has been identified to be conveyed with the power of direction to a police authority, and which enables the Secretary of State to look to the chief officer and the policy authority to respond to the report and the problems that have been identified, and subsequently allows the Secretary of State to comment, but not to rewrite the plan.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: On a matter of clarification regarding HMIC, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Home Office meets members of HMIC to discuss possible audits or reviews that they might undertake?

John Denham: There are now three or four elements to the inspection process carried out by HMIC. First, there are routine inspections of forces. Those seek to cover all forces over a period of time, but there is a professional process undertaken by HMIC based on what could be called risk analysisa look at indicators to suggest where certain forces may not be performing as well as others. Secondly, there is the programme of basic command unit inspections, which are usually peer-led and carried out by another command unit's chief superintendent seconded to the inspectorate.
	Thirdly, there are programmes of thematic inspectionsfor example, on diversity. Fourthly, there is the potential for the Home Secretary to ask for a specific inquiry into a particular area. It is fair to say that in each of those areas, there is discussion with Ministers, although in practice the basic command unit programme and the normal force programme are left to the professional discretion of HMIC. In the thematic area, there is generally some discussion. For example, discussion is currently taking place about the possible examination of domestic violence prosecutions, which would involve both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate.
	I hope that we have had a useful discussion so far. Before I sit down, I shall give way briefly to the right hon. Member for West Dorset.

Oliver Letwin: We have indeed had a useful discussion, which justifies the existence of such debates in the House. We believe that it would be extremely productive to discuss subsection (2). Perhaps we can find a route that will establish consensus by constraining the power of direction to being a power of triggering, not a power of specifying. Of course, we shall have to discuss that outside the present congregation, but I hope that we may be on the verge of a solution.

John Denham: That would be helpful. We had understood subsection (2) simply to ensure that a plan leading to remedial measures would be prepared. Indeed, we removed from earlier drafts and clauses a whole set of provisions about targets, performance measures, time scales and so on, which were very much part of the power to direct what was in the plan. I will now sit down for fear of saying anything that could unravel the good progress that we have made in the past half an hour.

Norman Baker: I have been happily listening to that interesting and useful exchange across the Floor of the House. From a neutral point of viewif one can call Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches neutralI perceive the distinct possibility that there could be all-party agreement on how we go forward. The Minister responded thoughtfully. It was the second thoughtful statement by a home affairs Minister this afternoon. To be fair to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), he also approached the matter thoughtfully, so plaudits all round. I am not sure whether the Government's change of heart is based on a conversion to the approach advocated by Opposition Members or on a calculation based on mathematics, a word that the Minister used yesterday in relation to the Henry VIII clause. That may be an academic point, but it is important because it underlies the Government's intentions, and those intentions will affect their legislation and their whole approach to the police reform package.
	It seems a long time since we started talking in Committee about the tripartite structure. Hon. Members in all three parties agree that that is important and needs to be retained, but there is division between us on how much weight should be placed on each leg of the tripod. Under the proposed system, the tripartite structure will allow one piecethe Home Secretaryto conclude that two other pieces have failed, then to trigger action. I do not dissent from that, but it nevertheless shows that the tripod may not be evenly balanced.
	As the right hon. Member for West Dorset said, when the Home Secretary moved from the Department for Education and Skills to his new post, his initial motivation was his identification of a number of problems that needed to be dealt with and his desire to deal with them in way that meant better policing and less crime. He also brought with him a sense of frustration that when matters went wrong he was the one who got it in the neck, but he did not always have the lever to pullthe phrase that he regularly usesto correct the situation. That is a very human response. However, his subsequent logic has displayed a fundamental errornamely, that if there is a problem the answer is to take more power to the centre. That is not the answer. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) also falls into that trap. There is no proof whatsoever that taking power to the centre will lead to better policing or a better criminal justice system. In fact, devolving power to police authorities, making them more accountable at a local level and involving communities more in the administration of the police and the criminal justice system in their area, might be far more effective in achieving the improvements that we all want.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Just to clarify what I said, I am not a centralist at heart; I believe that people are best directed to run their own affairs. However, I have only to look at statistics for all the police authorities for it to be manifestly apparent that some are much more able to run their affairs than others. I fear that without external intervention that situation will continue, to the detriment of my constituents.

Norman Baker: I understand the hon. Lady's position exactly, but in this case taking more power to the centre would not lead to a better situation. The fount of all knowledge does not lie in Whitehall with Home Office civil servants, no matter how elegant and elevated they may be, and nobody would suggest that they are necessarily the best-placed people to sort out the problems of Dorset, Sussex or anywhere else, which should be dealt with locally.

Ian Lucas: But is not the point that comparative information is held in Whitehall? It is not possible for police authorities in one part of the country to be aware of information that is held by police authorities in other parts of the country. There has to be some input from central Government to clarify comparative information.

Norman Baker: Of course it is important that best practice is sharednobody disputes thatand that the Home Office has a role in collecting and disseminating information. It is a good idea for it to be able to say, for example, Have you noticed what is happening in Derbyshire?

Kevan Jones: That is not a very good example.

Norman Baker: I am not familiar with Derbyshire, so I shall instead say Sussex, which is my part of the world. There is nothing wrong with the Home Office doing that, but that is not what clause 5 proposes. The hon. Member for Crosby must recognise

Kevan Jones: rose

Norman Baker: I am still answering the previous point, if I may. The hon. Lady must recognise that police statistics vary. There has not been consistency in the way in which information has been collected and collated, and the statistics may not be entirely reliable. To be fair to the Government, they are dealing with that, but we are not there yet. So it is a false premise to say that the divisions that the hon. Lady mentions are as wide as she says. Moreover, local policing in local areas throws up different problems. The problems of Brixton are very different from those of Sussex, so it is not fair to try to compare like with like. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is no longer in the Chamber, a chief constable may decide that the priority for his or her area is rather different from that for a chief constable in a different area. It is not for us as politicians to impose from the centre a blanket solution that may be inappropriate for certain parts of the country.

Kevan Jones: I asked the hon. Gentleman this question in Committee, and I shall do so again. Under what circumstances, in the Liberal Democrat wonderland in which he appears to live, would it be appropriate for the Home Secretary to intervene in a local police authority? Is he telling the House that a Home Secretary should never intervene in a police authority that was failing its local public? If so, I do not want to hear any more of his colleagues criticising the Home Secretary when local police authorities are failing.

Norman Baker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman associates Liberal Democrats with wonderland, since wonder is something wonderful to be enjoyed. At least he recognises that. I have never said that the Home Secretary should not interveneI would not use that word, but advise, certainlyin respect of police authority matters. Indeed, the Home Secretary can already intervene in a whole range of mattersthe Police Act 1996, the Police Act 1964 and other legislation. We are not querying thatwe are querying the projected extension of his powers in the Bill. That is the answer that I gave the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in Committee, and I give it again today. I am sorry if he does not like it, but that is the fact of the matter. It is not black and whitethere is a middle road to tread, and we are arguing about how far it should go.

Simon Hughes: Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), does my hon. Friend agree that we need to consider whether police authorities are adequately responsive to their communities? Perhaps, rather than expecting the Government to solve every problem across every Department, we should look again at whether police authorities require an alteration to their structure. Already, greater influence is exerted at borough and local command unit level, which may be because people feel that the police authority structure is too remote for local community needs, which differ even within one police force area.

Norman Baker: I agree. I referred to police authorities earlier. We need to make them more accountable; that would lead to better local policing. To introduce a note of discord, a Conservative Government changed the constitution of police authorities to remove local councillors. That was a regressive step.
	Local crime and disorder partnerships work well, and they have included the community. That means that local people own the agenda, and the partnerships have been successful. They constitute one of the Government's better initiatives on crime.
	Let me consider the substance of the new clause and the amendment before I become too distracted and take up too much time. I have not taken as much time as the other two Front-Bench spokesmen, and I shall not try to match them. I genuinely welcome the Government's attempt to tackle the problem through the amendment; it would be churlish not to do that. Whether it constitutes tactics or a change of heart, they have proposed a solution that is better than the original proposal, and it would be wrong not to say that.
	It is especially welcome that the Government have taken account of points that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and I made in Committee about triggering the intervention. That is important. As the Minister knows, I was worried that the police standards unit, which is an offshoot of the Home Office and therefore not independent, could trigger the mechanism. That was wrong, and the Government have limited the power to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which is widely perceived as independent, responsible and serious. That is welcome and I thank the Minister.
	Involving the police authority is also welcome. The train continues to go from London to Newcastle, but it now stops at York on the way. It did not do that previously. That is a welcome change.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset mentioned clause 2. It was not discussed extensively in Committee, but perhaps the value of Report is the opportunity that it grants to reflect on the progress of the measure up to a specific point. There is not much to sort out to make the provision acceptable, and I hope that the Minister will accept those comments as a positive sign.
	I was about to say that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North made a speech that was punctuated by remarks from both Front-Bench spokesmen, but that would be unkind because he is not here. He knows that I have tremendous respect for him. He talked about operational measures, which, to some extent, go to the heart of the Bill. It is proper for the Home Secretary or any other Member of Parliament to try to influence the chief constable of a specific area and draw matters of public anxiety to his or her attention.
	Any chief constable who has not taken note of exchanges on the Floor of the House on street crime, for example, in a recent Prime Minister's Question Time, is unwise. The public are worried about street crime and it is legitimate to expect the chief constable to respond to the agenda and take account of it operationally. However granting the Home Secretary power to require the chief constable to take action, especially action that the latter believes to be inappropriate for the area, is a different matter. It is a good move to remove that power.
	I want others to have the opportunity to contribute and I have therefore kept my remarks brief. The new clause has merit and the issues should be considered further. One or two matters need to be ironed out before we are completely happy, but I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken through the amendments, which go a long way towards tackling our legitimate anxieties.

Kevan Jones: This afternoon and in Committee, we heard much from Conservative Members about political control of operational policing. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made the extraordinary statement that it was important to keep politics out of local policing. In Committee, the Opposition tried to suggest that the Bill was all about giving the Home Secretary more direct control over local policing and police authorities. It is not; the Bill's purpose is to improve standards and solve the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) highlighted earlier: the disparity between different police authorities. People are asking about the reasons for the disparities and why people are not acting locally to tackle the matters that worry them.

Annette Brooke: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. He appears to lack confidence in the power of local opinion. Perhaps he has some ideas about ways in which to strengthen it. Throughout our proceedings, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and I have emphasised the need for more consultation. Through more effective consultation on all the strategic plans and empowering the local community more, we can strengthen local people's power to get the policing that they believe they need. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for that intervention. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that we should discuss reform of local police authorities, but the Bill does not cover that. The Liberal Democrats try to present a utopian vision of local police authorities that are somehow in touch with what happens locally or are representative. I cannot accept that.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) is a genuine person, who comes over as my favourite aunt Mabel because she views the world through rose-tinted spectacles. However, life is a little harsher. People disagree about the way in which areas should be policed.
	Let us revert to political control of the police, which has constituted the main opposition to the Bill. We need to remind Conservative Members of their origins. I accept that they are on a long political journey in the wilderness and that they have to devise policies on a range of issues, but the right hon. Member for West Dorset talked about taking politics out of policing.
	Like the hon. Member for Lewes, I remind Conservative Members that a Conservative Government interfered directly in police authorities in 1994, when they reduced the number of county councillors who served on them. They also provided that the Home Secretary had a direct influence on appointments to police authorities. We need look no further than 1994 and the Conservative Government for an example of introducing politics into local policing.

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. He will recall that the Opposition spokesman was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the Prime Minister, who said that
	the Bill represents the most determined and least popular attempt ever made to centralise policing in Britain.[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 122.]
	The powers that the Bill grants the Home Secretary go far beyond those in the 1994 Act. The hon. Gentleman talks about the origins of the Conservative party; what are those of the Labour party?

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for that intervention because the hon. Gentleman gave an example of a Conservative Government changing local operational methods and placing political appointees on police authorities to control the direction of local policing. Those provisions were far stronger than the measure that we are considering. We are discussing not political control, but improving standards. That will be popular with the public, certainly in my constituency.
	We must accept the Government amendment and ensure that the Home Secretary rightly has the power to intervene to help local people when police authorities are failing. It is no good Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for West Dorset, criticising the Home Secretary or any Minister when people complain about local policing.

Douglas Hogg: I shall comment briefly on new clause 1. Subject to an amendment, which I shall support and at which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) hinted, new clause 1 offers a way forward.
	I do not believe that it is right to grant the Home Secretary the right to impose an action plan on a police authority. Many years ago, I had an opportunity to perform the functions that the Minister now undertakes. For some 12 months, I was responsible for the police service. In any event, I worked at the Home Office for almost two years, or slightly longer. Much as I hold Home Office officials in my regard, I do not think that they are terribly well placed to determine local policing needs. They have a remoteness and, indeed, a lack of accountability that seems to me to constitute an objection both in practical terms and in principle. On the other hand, I have no objection at all to the Home Secretary responding to advice from the inspectorate and drawing to the attention of the police authority problems that have been highlighted in an inspector's report.
	I would therefore draw on new clause 1 to enable the Home Secretary to send the relevant papers to the police authority and perhaps make suggestions in a form of notice, but allow the authority the ability to determine whether an action plan should be introduced and the contents of such a plan. In other words, the essential decisions should be made by the police authority, albeit that its attention should be directed to the issue by the Home Secretary.

Kevan Jones: I accept the logic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but what would happen if the police authority decided to do nothing and take no action?

Douglas Hogg: That is a perfectly fair point. Indeed, I was about to deal with it, but before I do so, I should like to back-track for a moment and draw attention to the fact that, as I told the Minister, we have given the Home Secretary power to require the resignation, retirement or suspension of the chief police officer. I would be rather surprised if the circumstances that we are contemplating as justifying the triggering report from the Home Secretary would not also justify serious consideration in terms of the desirability of causing the chief police officer to retire or resign. In other words, there will be a second sanction if the police authority simply refuses to act.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) asked what would happen if the police authority decided to do nothing. I should like now to do something that I do not usually do and take up a point made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I notice that he is making faces; I share his sense of distaste. However, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), with whom I do not generally agree or associate myself, made a point of some substance in saying that the police authority's accountability to the local community should be reinforced. I agree with that view. I think that this House should seriously, but perhaps in slower measure, debate how the police authority can be made more accountable to the local community. It is increasingly my belief that in order to deal with such problems, we should not take more centralised powers, but try to devolve decision-making processes downwards.
	I am not being dogmaticat least, not on this occasion, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speakerbut I would have thought that some process of election should seriously be considered. Whether one would confine it to the chairmanship or membership of the police authority is a matter for debate. However, in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Durham, I point out that, if the police authority did nothing, it would have to account to the local community for that decision. If it felt that its local community would support such a decision, the proper process of accountability and local government would be involved.

Kevan Jones: This would be a horrible moment in anyone's political career: I think that I agree with right hon. and learned Gentleman, about the need for local police authorities to be more accountable. I have argued previously for the introduction of direct elections, but he was a member of a Government who introduced measures to reduce the number of local councillors on the authorities. Did he argue against the policy at that time?

Douglas Hogg: I suspect that I was a Minister at the time and that I did not have any particular responsibility for that decision. The truth is that as a Minister or a party member, one is associated with many decisions that are made collectively and of which one does not wholly approve. I have argued many opinions in my party both now and in the past which have not accorded with the general view. I usually just get along with it. I do not spend my time resigning; I am a practical man. I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am not in the least embarrassed to say so.
	I should like to wrap up my remarks, mainly because I want to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and, indeed, that of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). New clause 1 provides the way forward, but the word shall should be removed from proposed subsection (3) and replaced by the word may. I hope that, in due time, we will be in the business of making police authorities more accountable.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I welcome the amendments that relate to directions to chief officers. I make my speech not only as the Member of Parliament for Crosby, but as chairman of the all-party group on abuse investigations.
	In the past few years, I have lost count of the number of complaints that I have received about policing in my area. In the past four years, I have received hundreds of complaints about police practices and procedures in relation to abuse cases throughout the UK. As a consequence, I have made it my business to find out about the huge variation of police performance throughout the UK.
	I should like to refer to a remark made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who asserted that the Home Office was seeking to create a platform on which it would have greater control over police operations. I cannot accept that phraseology, as I regard the amendments related to chief officers as a development of section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which was, as he will be aware, introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. Indeed, that Act established the relationship between the Secretary of State and the inspection.
	It has been suggested that the enhanced relationship that will flow from the provisions will not enable police authorities to resolve performance inefficiencies or ineffectiveness. I wish that I had found substantial evidence in every police authority to show that either the police, the chief constable or the authority had undertaken of their own volition significant process review or analysis, but I am afraid that that is not the case; otherwise, I believe that we would see year-on-year improvements in areas of operational effectiveness. We do not see such improvements, however, as the limited statistics available on police performance clearly indicate.
	I accept the view of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who is not currently in his seat, that the statistics may not be accurate. Frankly, however, no other information is available to me at this time that I can use to compare and contrast what is happening in police authorities throughout the UK. Furthermore, I do not believe that the measures will undermine police authorities that are striving continuously to improve. The measures are being introduced to facilitate improvements in authorities that give cause for concern.
	I regard the amendments as absolutely vital and as an important step towards ensuring that my constituents receive the very best of services, given that the police precept on Merseyside is one of the very highest in the UK.

Elfyn Llwyd: I shall address the House very briefly, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
	I fully support what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said. I do not have any sense of shame in expressing my agreement with people who speak sense; perhaps I am not tribal enough for this place.

James Paice: But you are Welsh.

Elfyn Llwyd: Perhaps I am different from the norm; my wife says so occasionally.
	Much has been said about the Home Secretary's tenure of the education brief. Yes, there was a shake-up; league tables were introduced, heaven knows how many forms had to be filled in and so on. Last week, there was a huge lobby of Parliament by teachers who feel that they are doing far too much paperwork and far too little teaching. Parts of the Bill are good, but there is a tendency towards centralisation and allowing the centre to become too involved in policing.
	I was interested in the Minister's response to a question that I asked, in which he said that there was no list of under-performing forces. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said in an intervention that we need some form of procedure to collect and collate information, but the Home Office can already do that. There is no doubt about it; it not only already does so, but it tries to compare like with like. It is not a perfect science, but the north Wales forces are linked with another eight or nine semi-rural forces. That is what currently happens.
	A note of caution has to be sounded. Policing difficulties will vary from one area to another. It goes without saying that the problems of rural areas are quite different from those of populous areas. Strains occur when there is an unusually high incidence of violence or of class A drug use, for example. It is, therefore, difficult to compare like with like. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we need to bring more pressure to bear to democratise police authorities. That is the way forward.
	We heard from the Minister about codes of practice, but they can be ignored by a chief constable, using his or her discretion. It seems bizarre that any code of practice can be ignored at someone's discretion. If a chief constable decides to employ that discretion and regularly ignore a code or codes of practice, who will decide whether that discretion is well founded and has been properly exercised? This proposal is a bizarre notion.
	Although the Bill contains good parts that I fully support, I cannot do other than to say that, under its provisions, as Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said in the other place, we shall be
	moving by stealth . . . unnoticeably and slowly towards a national police force.[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 156.]
	That will be of no use to any of us. Different policing areas of the United Kingdom have different priorities. Those priorities vary widely within Wales and within England, and so it will be. It will not be possible to introduce any real uniformity. No hon. Member in any part of the House can possibly be against driving up standards. Common sense dictates that we need to maintain proper standards, that we need proper scrutiny of the processes, and that we have the highest possible standards, but bringing the dead hand of central Government to bear will do nothing to achieve that.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred to the historical perspective. I am not viewing this just from an historical perspective; the system seems to have worked fairly well up until now. Yes, some police forces do better than others, but the solution is more a question of people putting their heads together, of educatingin the proper sense; I do not want to be offensive in any wayand of ensuring best practice. That is the way forward. Allowing too many powers of intervention from the centre will achieve nothing at all. Indeed, it is a worrying tendency.

George Osborne: I have enjoyed this debate, and I can certainly testify to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) often disagreed with other members of the Government when he was a Minister, and that they often disagreed with him, because I was his special adviser and sometimes had to pick up the pieces. As a new Member in this place, I have enjoyed watching the negotiations taking place across the Dispatch Box. It has been like watching a Fischer-Spassky chess game. I am not sure who has been checkmated at the end of it, but I have enough confidence in my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to hope that it is not us.
	The Government have introduced some significant and welcome concessions on issues that were the subject of lengthy discussions in Committee, particularly those involving the police authorities and, above all, those involving the trigger mechanism for the power of the Home Secretary to intervene and direct chief constables. The concessions significantly improve the relevant clause, and, indeed, the whole Bill, which would otherwiseaccording to virtually every organisation in the countryhave given the Home Secretary sweeping powers to direct the police and undermine the now-famous tripartite relationship that guarantees the independence of the police from the politicians of the day.
	To return to the point that I made earlier to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), the fact that the Government introduced the clause in the first place says much about the way in which the Labour party has changed. I have been reading the Second and Third Reading debates of what became the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994they have been close to my bed as I have gone to sleep each nightand it is remarkable to see how the Government have changed their tack. The Opposition spokesman at the time, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the Prime Minister, said on Third Reading:
	The difference between the two of us is that, while the Home Secretary wants objectives to be set centrally by central Government, the police, the Opposition and virtually everyone else believe that they should be set by local people.[Official Report, 5 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 272.]
	He also said, on Second Reading:
	The people of this country do not want a centralised police service, under a Conservative or any other Government.[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 130.]
	He was right, at the time. He was a pretty good shadow Home Secretary, as Conservatives remember to our cost. The Labour party seems to have forgotten all that in the intervening years, amid the pressures of government.

Kevan Jones: I know that, back in 1994, the hon. Gentleman was just a humble spin doctor, but, if he had been a Member of Parliament, would he have voted to reduce the number of councillors on police authorities and to allow the Home Secretary to have a direct input into the appointment of independent members of those authorities?

George Osborne: I would probably have voted in the way that my Whips had instructed me to doas, indeed, will the hon. Gentleman tonight. I rememberas I am sure he does, because he was a spin doctor for a trade union; there are different career paths for those in the Labour and Conservative partiesthat, at the time, the Labour party was advocating wholly elected police authorities. I do not see a provision for that in the Bill, but times change and we move on.
	I still fear that the Bill is a little too interventionist and centralist, but it is in the nature of politics to compromise and make concessions to make progress, so I shall wait to see the outcome of the negotiations. I have been interested to watch the chess game taking place across the Dispatch Box, and I shall await instructions from my pager.

Oliver Letwin: I should begin by repeating the statement that I made in response to the exchange that the Minister and I had a little while back, which was that these proceedings have justified the process that we go through in Parliament of gradually teasing out the issues. It is enormously welcome that the Minister has suggested the possibility of having at least a circumscribed discussion about alterations to his proposed amendments. I hope that, by those means, we can achieve some consensusif not here tonight, at an early date in another placethat will enable the Bill to move forward.
	The other feature of this evening's discussions that has been very interesting was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) a moment ago. There is no doubt that the underlying theory hereso far as both the principle and the practice are concernedhas reversed itself. There was a time when the Labour party believed that there was a real argument for localismat least in the context of policing, if not of many other issues. There was also a time when the Conservative party believed that there was much to be gainedon this issue, if not on many othersby trying to bring about more effectiveness from the centre.
	The present Labour Government have become more and more disenchanted with long-term strategies to create sustainable structural solutions that will bring about sustainable improvement through local pressure and professional independence. They have also become more and more enchanted by the idea of taking action from the centre. At the same time, as the Conservatives look back on the many difficulties that we experienced in achieving results from the centre, on the great advances that we made in the many areas that we liberated to operate more independently of the centre, and on the sustained failure of the Government over five years to achieve improvements in many domainsstretching from education to the Home Officethrough increased intervention, we have become increasingly sceptical of the value of centralised intervention and increasingly attentive to the long-term sustainable advantages of localism. That is a most interesting shift in the character of politics. The only difference is, to my mind, that we were once mistaken in this area and generally right, although we are now right in this area, whereas the Government, having been generally wrong but right in this area, have added this area to their list of wrongness.
	That is a pity, although it is interesting as a matter of reflection. The good news is that we may be able to reach a consensus on a position very far removed from that at which the Government began, as the Minister rightly and gallantly said. We may be able to achieve enough to prevent the Secretary of State from being what I described as the puppeteer, though one will have to consider the matter in practice. We shall know whether we have done enough to guard against that only when we see how the thing plays out, and we may have to return to the issue.

Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the fact that both parties have changed their view and to the relative merits of centralism and localism. The truth is that all Governments find that it is difficult to delegate downwards because they get blamed for the mistakes made by the devolved authorities. Should not all Governments be ready to distance themselves from decisions made locally simply by saying that such is the nature of devolved administration? Governments should not seek to control the minutiae of policy where that is properly left to local authorities of one kind or another.

Oliver Letwin: I am persuaded by my right hon. and learned Friend's argument. That is a logic that we, in government, amply demonstrated and implemented in another sphere. There is no doubt that we leapt over how the Department of Trade and Industry could take responsibility for the performance of the whole of British industry, or a substantial part of it, without controlling or owning it by denying the validity of that question through privatisation and the removal of the Department's effort to take responsibility for the performance of any large part of British industry. In doing so, we admitted the long-term sustainable advantages of the marketplace compared with the long-term unsustainable disadvantages of centralised control. That is where we are now in relation to the new clause, in a quite different domain in terms of policing.
	I might say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have been peculiarly forbearing in not stopping me during that excursion, which was a propos the precise details of the new clause, although it is relevant to understand the conceptual framework being discussed in this interesting and useful debate. I hope that you will permit us to press not new clause 1much as I am attached to it, I recognise that it represents a position that the Minister is unlikely to accept, all the more so in respect of shall rather than maybut amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 111 to signify that, as it stands, we are not satisfied that the amendments go far enough.
	However, we enter the proviso that we are more than willing to discuss with the Minister, in some detail and in the spirit of co-operation, and as he so generously suggested, how we could further amend the amendments to the amendments to reach the point at which there is consensus in another place.

John Denham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I do not accept his description of the debate's conceptual framework. I do not accept that one political party started on a journey from Newcastle to London while the other started on a journey from London to Newcastle and that they are about to cross somewhere in the vicinity of Grantham.
	One of the myths surrounding the Bill is that it is overbearing centralism from a party that used to believe in localism. Once the Bill is out of the way, once we see how the police reform process works in practice and as we develop a more effective performance assessment systemmy hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) mentioned thatand best professional practice in the police service, we shall see the virtue of the highest quality of local professional leadership supported by police authorities in a national framework that provides a clearer, more coherent approach to national policing priorities and the need for forces to work together. That is what we have set out to achieve, not overbearing centralism. In any case, the debate on the new clause is essentially about a much narrower set of circumstances.
	Provided that the Secretary of State is able to direct a police authority to take action, there is room to discuss the wording of the direction, as we suggested earlier. That is helpful. It is important to remember that there is a real advantage in making progress on the Bill. People out there in local communities, local police forces and local authorities want to be able to implement many measures at the earliest possible opportunity, not least those on antisocial behaviour orders and on community support officers, which the Metropolitan police are already recruiting. The debate on such issues and on how we can proceed has been valuable, and we shall discuss those other measures in more detail in a few moments.
	Interesting concepts have been introduced to the debate. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the non-tribal nationalist, which is a new one on me, but we shall work on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to performance assessment in the police service, and she will follow events with interest as we develop the broader and more balanced approach to it that was flagged up in the White Paper and which is being discussed with the police service.
	The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) tried to set out how the Government have changed their position since the Bill was introduced. I must say in return that when the Bill was introduced the Conservative party was denying the existence of any problems that might require the powers of intervention that we have discussed tonight, so there has been movement on both sides.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and others took us into an area of debate that is not, strictly speaking, to do with the new clause, as it involves the nature of police authorities. That debate will continue, but it is the Government's view that this is not the time to change the composition of police authorities. However, let me say on the record once more that we recognise their important role in the tripartite structure. If the changes that we propose provide reassurance that there is no threat to that structureundoubtedly, the Association of Police Authorities and police authorities themselves will see the matter that waythat is welcome.
	We have had a useful debate on an important and controversial part of the Bill. It is good that we continue to make progress even at this late stage, and the powers that the public want to be available should be available in, I hope, the not too distant future. With that, I urge the House to resist the new clause. In turn, I hope that our amendments will be accepted, as we need them so that they can be reconsidered in another place. Otherwise, there will be no change to address. We recognise, however, that we need to examine some of the drafting.

Oliver Letwin: I hope that the Minister accepts that it has never been our intention to have the Bill jettisoned. We have always sought to achieve a consensus sufficient to allow the legislation, which is, in the main, beneficial, to proceed.

John Denham: I accept that. Although the elected Government enjoy a considerable majority in the House of Commons, they do not enjoy a majority in the House of Lords, which gives the Lords majority real power and a real say. That should not be pushed to the point at which Bills are destroyed, however, so sensible discussion of these matters is very helpful indeed.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	It being Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day]

Clause 5
	  
	Directions to chief officers

Amendments made: No. 109, in page 5, line 38, leave out from where to first the, in line 41, and insert
	'a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection under section 54 states, in relation to a police force for a police area
	(a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report,'.
	No. 110, in page 5, line 43, after that insert
	', in that person's opinion,'.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Amendment proposed: (a) to Government amendment No. 111, in line 1, before chief, insert may direct the.
	The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment made: No. 111, in page 6, line 1, leave out
	'chief officer of police of'
	and insert
	'police authority responsible for maintaining'.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Amendments made: No. 112, in page 6, line 2, leave out prepare and.
	No. 113, in page 6, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 8.
	No. 114, in page 6, line 8, at end insert
	'(3A) If a police authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the chief officer of police of the force in question to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the police authority for that authority to consider.
	(3B) The police authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3A) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.
	(3C) If the police authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3A), it must consult with the chief officer of police.'.
	No. 115, in page 6, line 10, leave out from may to end of line 16 and insert
	', if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the police authority and the chief officer of the force in question of that opinion and of his reasons for it.
	(4A) If a police authority is notified under subsection (4)
	(a) it shall consider, after consultation with the chief officer of the police force in question about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan in the light of those matters; and
	(b) if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.'.
	No. 116, in page 6, line 17, leave out chief officer of any and insert
	'police authority responsible for maintaining a'.
	No. 116, As Amendments to Mr. Secretary Blunkett's proposed Amendment (No. 116) (Page 6, line 17 [Clause 5]):
	No. 117, in page 6, line 18, leave out police authority maintaining and insert
	'chief officer of police of'.
	No. 117, As Amendments to Mr. Secretary Blunkett's proposed Amendment (No. 117) (Page 6, line 18 [Clause 5]):
	No. 118, in page 6, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert
	'(6) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.'.
	No. 119, in page 6, line 23, leave out or resubmitted.
	No. 120, in page 6, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 and insert
	'(a) provision setting out the steps that the police authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met;
	(b) provision setting out the authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured;'.
	No. 121, in page 6, line 30, after reports insert
	'to the Secretary of State'.
	No. 122, in page 6, line 31, leave out from plan to end of line 32.
	No. 123, in page 6, line 37, leave out
	'to direct the inclusion in an'
	and insert
	'or a police authority to direct the inclusion in an action plan or draft.'.
	No. 124, in page 6, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 44.
	No. 125, in page 6, line 46, leave out or resubmission.
	No. 126, in page 6, line 47, leave out or resubmission.
	No. 127, in page 7, line 2, at end insert
	'(10A) A police authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section.'.
	No. 128, in page 7, line 4, at end insert
	'(11A) Nothing in this section or in section 40 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same report under section 54 from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under section 40.'.
	No. 129, in page 7, line 16, leave out chief officer and insert police authority.[Mr. Heppell.]

Schedule 1
	  
	Powers of the Secretary of State in relation to NCIS and NCS

Amendments made: No. 131, in page 106, line 2, leave out from where to first the, in line 4, and insert
	'an inspection report made to the Secretary of State states
	(a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report,'.
	No. 132, in page 106, line 6, after that insert
	', in that person's opinion,'.
	No. 133, in page 106, line 10, leave out
	'Director General of NCIS to prepare and'
	and insert NCIS Service Authority to.
	No. 134, in page 106, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.
	No. 135, in page 106, line 18, at end insert
	'(3A) If the NCIS Service Authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the Director General of NCIS to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the NCIS Service Authority for that authority to consider.
	(3B) The NCIS Service Authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3A) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.
	(3C) If the NCIS Service Authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3A), it must consult with the Director General of NCIS.'.
	No. 136, in page 106, line 20, leave out from may to end of line 27 and insert
	', if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the NCIS Service Authority and the Director General of NCIS of that opinion and of his reasons for it.
	(4A) In forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (4), the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Ministers.
	(4B) If the NCIS Service Authority is notified under subsection (4)
	(a) it shall consider, after consultation with the Director General of NCIS about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan in the light of those matters; and
	(b) if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.'.
	No. 137, in page 106, line 28, leave out Director General of NCIS and insert NCIS Service Authority.
	No. 138, in page 106, line 29, leave out NCIS Service Authority and insert Director General of NCIS.
	No. 139, in page 106, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert
	'(6) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.'.
	No. 140, in page 106, line 35, leave out or resubmitted.
	No. 141, in page 106, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert
	'(a) provision setting out the steps that the NCIS Service Authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met;
	(b) provision setting out that Authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured;'.
	No. 142, in page 106, line 42, after reports insert
	'to the Secretary of State'.
	No. 143, in page 106, line 43, leave out from plan to end of line 44.
	No. 144, in page 107, line 4, leave out
	'to direct the inclusion in an action of'
	and insert
	'or the NCIS Service Authority to direct the inclusion in an action plan or draft action.'.
	No. 145, in page 107, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 10.
	No. 146, in page 107, line 12, leave out or resubmission.
	No. 147, in page 107, line 14, leave out or resubmission.
	No. 148, in page 107, line 15, at end insert
	'(10A) The NCIS Service Authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section.'.
	No. 149, in page 107, line 33, at end insert
	'(15A) Nothing in this section or in section 30 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same inspection report from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under that section.'.
	No. 150, in page 107, line 36, leave out from where to first the, in line 39, and insert
	'a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 states
	(a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report,'.
	No. 151, in page 107, line 42, after that insert
	', in that person's opinion,'.
	No. 152, in page 108, line 1, leave out
	'Director General of the National Crime Squad to prepare and'
	and insert NCS Service Authority to.
	No. 153, in page 108, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 9.
	No. 154, in page 108, line 9, at end insert
	'(3A) If the NCS Service Authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the Director General of the National Crime Squad to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the NCS Service Authority for that authority to consider.
	(3B) The NCS Service Authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3A) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.
	(3C) If the NCS Service Authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3A), it must consult with the Director General of the National Crime Squad.'.
	No. 155, in page 108, line 11, leave out from may to end of line 17 and insert
	', if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the NCS Service Authority and the Director General of the National Crime Squad of that opinion and of his reasons for it.
	(4A) If the NCS Service Authority is notified under subsection (4)
	(a) it shall consider, after consultation with the Director General of the National Crime Squad about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan in the light of those matters; and
	(b) if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.'.
	No. 156, in page 108, line 18, leave out
	'Director General of the National Crime Squad'
	and insert NCS Service Authority.
	No. 157, in page 108, line 19, leave out NCS Service Authority and insert
	'Director General of the National Crime Squad'.
	No. 158, in page 108, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert
	'(6) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.'.
	No. 159, in page 108, line 25, leave out or resubmitted.
	No. 160, in page 108, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert
	'(a) provision setting out the steps that the NCS Service Authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met;
	(b) provision setting out that Authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured;'.
	No. 161, in page 108, line 32, after reports insert
	'to the Secretary of State'.
	No. 162, in page 108, line 33, leave out from plan to end of line 34.
	No. 163, in page 108, line 40, leave out
	'to direct the inclusion in an action of '
	and insert
	'or the NCS Service Authority to direct the inclusion in an action plan or draft action.'.
	No. 164, in page 108, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 47.
	No. 165, in page 109, line 2, leave out or resubmission.
	No. 166, in page 109, line 4, leave out or resubmission.
	No. 167, in page 109, line 5, at end insert
	'(10A) The NCS Service Authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section.'.
	No. 168, in page 109, line 16, at end insert
	'(13A) Nothing in this section or in section 75 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same report under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under section 75.'.
	No. 169, in page 109, line 32, leave out from Authority to has in line 33.
	No. 170, in page 109, line 36, leave out from beginning to ; and in line 40.
	No. 171, in page 111, line 22, leave out from Authority to has in line 33.
	No. 172, in page 111, line 26, leave out from beginning to ; and in line 30.
	No. 52, in page 112, line 5, leave out of the 1997 Act.
	No. 53, in page 113, line 5, leave out of the 1997 Act.[Mr. Heppell.]

New Clause 8
	  
	Continued deployment of traffic wardens

'Police authorities shall continue to appoint persons to discharge, in aid of the police, functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of, or enforcement of the law relating to, traffic or stationary vehicles unless
	(a) notwithstanding regulations under Part VIII of the Road Traffic Regulations Act, the police authority passes a resolution by 1st January 2004 not to continue deploying traffic wardens; and
	(b) that police authority informs the chief officer of police for that police force and the Secretary of State of its decision.'.[Norman Baker.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
	On the Question on the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2002, the Ayes were 312, the Noes 195, so the Question was agreed to.
	On the Question on the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance: Code of Practice) Order 2002, the Ayes were 312, the Noes 195, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Committee, further considered.

New Clause 9
	  
	Police powers for local authority employees

( ).(1) The chief officer of police of any police force may designate any person who is a local authority employee as an community support officer, subject to the agreement of the local authority concerned.
	(2) A chief officer of police shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that that person
	(a) is a suitable person to carry out the functions for the purposes of which he is designated;
	(b) is capable of effectively carrying out those functions; and
	(c) has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred on him by virtue of the designation.
	(3) A person designated under this section shall have the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by the designation.
	(4) A designation under this section shall confer powers and impose duties on the designated person by means only of provisions specifying the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 4.
	(5) An employee of a local authority authorised or required to do anything by virtue of a designation under this section
	(a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that designation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of that employment; and
	(b) shall be so authorised or required subject to such restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his designation.
	(6) Where any power exercisable by any person in reliance on his designation under this section is a power which, in the case of its exercise by a constable, includes or is supplemented by a power in reliance on that designation shall have the same entitlement as a constable to use reasonable force.
	(7) Where any power exercisable by any person in reliance on his designation under this section includes power to use force to enter any premises, that power shall not be exercisable by that person except
	(a) in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable; or
	(b) for the purpose of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property.
	(8) In this section local authority means
	(a) in relation to England, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and
	(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council.'.[Norman Baker.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: Amendment No. 67, in clause 9, in page 10, line 34, leave out paragraph (d) and insert
	'(d) he is a person in relation to whom a designation under section (police powers for local authority employees) is in force.'
	Amendment No. 64, in clause 38, in page 39, line 6, after force, insert
	', after consulting the principal local authority for that area,'.
	Amendment No. 63, in page 39, line 14, at end insert
	'(2A) At the end of the first year the police authority maintaining that police force shall give its approval for the continued designation of persons under section 38.
	(2B) If a police authority maintaining that force does not give its approval, it shall inform
	(a) the Secretary of State; and
	(b) the chief officer of police for that area who shall withdraw all designations under section 38 and make no further designations for a period of not less than one year.'.
	Amendment No. 65, in page 41, line 37, leave out Clause 40.
	Government amendments Nos. 27 to 29
	Amendment No. 66, in page 42, leave out Clause 41.
	Amendment No. 69, in clause 42, page 43, line 38, after second or, insert
	'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.
	Amendment No. 68, in page 43, line 38, leave out
	'his accreditation under section 41'.
	Amendment No. 70, in page 43, line 39, leave out from or accreditation.
	Amendment No. 72, in page 43, line 42, after second or, insert
	'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.
	Amendment No. 71, in page 43, line 42, leave out
	'his accreditation under section 41'.
	Amendment No. 73, in page 43, line 45, leave out or accreditation.
	Amendment No. 74, in page 43, line 46, leave out or accreditation.
	Amendment No. 75, in page 44, leave out lines 1 to 4.
	Amendment No. 76, in page 44, line 5, leave out or accreditation.
	Amendment No. 78, in page 44, line 6, after or, insert
	'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.
	Amendment No. 77, in page 44, line 6, leave out 41.
	Amendment No. 79, in page 44, line 7, leave out or accredited person.
	Amendment No. 80, in page 44, line 7, leave out or accreditation.
	Amendment No. 81, in page 44, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
	Amendment No. 82, in line 37, leave out subsection (10).
	Amendment No. 83, in page 44, line 44 leave out Clause 43.
	Government amendment No. 33
	Amendment No. 84, in clause 45, in page 46, line 17, leave out or 5.
	Amendment No. 85, in page 46, line 18, leave out from in to the end of line 19 and insert that Schedule.
	Amendment No. 86, in page 46, line 20, leave out from first of to end of line 21 and insert that Schedule.
	Amendment No. 88, in page 46, line 34, after or, insert
	'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.
	Amendment No. 87, in page 46, line 34, leave out 41.
	Amendment No. 89, in page 46, line 35, leave out
	'or, as the case may be, 5'.
	Government amendments Nos. 36 to 38
	Amendment No. 90, in clause 47, in page 47, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 91, in page 48, line 1, leave out or accredited.
	Amendment No. 92, in page 48, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 93, in page 48, line 15, leave out or an accredited person.
	Amendment No. 94, in page 48, line 17, leave out
	'or that he is an accredited person'.
	Amendment No. 95, in page 48, line 19, leave out or accredited.
	Amendment No. 96, in page 48, line 24, leave out or accredited person.
	Amendment No. 97, in page 48, line 26, leave out or accreditation.
	Amendment No. 98, in clause 48, page 48, leave out lines 29 to 33.
	Amendment No. 99, in page 157, line 38, leave out Schedule 5.

Norman Baker: I promise not to address each amendment in this group; otherwise we would be here for some considerable time. Indeed, I shall be reasonably brief, as I am conscious of the hour, and also of the following groups of amendments, which we want to reach tonight. I do not want to repeat last night's debate, except to remind hon. Members that our vision for policing is notunfortunately, from our point of viewthe vision set out in the Bill.
	Our vision is based on simplicity, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, and having in post people who are properly trained. We are not convinced that the configuration proposed by the Government achieves those ends. Our vision is to have both police officers as we have at present, full-time, part-time or specials, and community support officersan idea that, I might remind the Minister, we suggested in our manifesto and have always supported in principle.
	We believe that for the purposes of simplicity and effectiveness, and of ensuring that as many people as possible are used to tackle the issues that we have been discussing under the Bill, the category of community support officers should include traffic wardens, and vice versa, because of their powers. That was the point that we were making when we voted on new clause 8.
	That would provide a simplicity and an accountability that I believe are lacking in the Government proposals. Last night the Minister said he thought that we might get there in the long run, but that the question was whether we should try to create that structure from the start. There is a genuine disagreement across the Floor of the House on how we should approach that matter. We are clear that the Government proposals will provide not simplicity, but a plethora of different people with different powers, according to where they are in the country. Indeed, the powers could be different on different sides of the street when people crossed from one borough or district to another.
	Accountability will be missing, especially from accredited officers who are not even employed by a public authority. There is also a question mark over whether they will be efficient and effectivetwo of the Government's key testsif people do not even know what powers they have, and there is no clear relationship, in the public's mind at least, between the various bodies created and the people who staff them.
	With that in mind, we have tried to address some of the issues. New clause 9 is an attempt to ensure that community support officers, as well as being employed by the police, could also be employed by local authorities. That would ensure accountability, because local authorities are democratically elected. It would also build on the Government's welcome initiative of crime and disorder partnerships, which are clearly working. 7.30 pm
	The sorts of powers that we, and the Government, wish to give to CSOs would fit in well with those partnerships, and it is proper that local authorities should play a role in them. I speak as a former council leader, and I see another, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), in his place on the Treasury Bench. Such measures would be simpler and more understandable, not to mention closer to the communityto pick up the point made in the last debate about ensuring accountability and community involvement. We already have a precedent, because traffic warden powers have been exercised locally. That Government initiative is working well in those areas in which it has been deployed. The Government have conceded that principle: we seek to extend it to CSOs. That is the gist of new clause 9.
	I hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving local authorities a clearer role in the sorts of powers that they wish to give to CSOs. That appears to me to be an uncontroversial suggestion. The CSOs would, of course, have to be approved by the local chief constable, and they would have to be properly trained. The chief constable would also need an input into what the CSOs were doing. I shall not discuss those caveats at length, but I do recognise the need for some police involvement.
	It is impossible to address all these amendments, but I shall turn now to the other main issue of concern, which is the issue of accredited officers. It may not be widely known outside the House, but the Bill presages the suggestion that a whole range of people should be given police powers, without being accountable to the police or to local authorities. That strikes Liberal Democrats as a dangerous precedent. It would mean that companiesincluding those that are highly regarded, or otherwisecould have employees with police powers. The Government have introduced amendments to include the railway industry, so that could mean that employees of companies such as Jarvis or Tesco could have police powers. That would be dangerous. Without overstating my case, I suggest that it would amount to a part-privatisation of policing, and we would resist that. I am surprised that a Labour Government have made such a suggestion.
	The measures would also open the door to policing for profit. Those companies who employ the accredited persons will clearly wish to have them act in the interests of that company rather than of the general public, and those interests are not necessarily the same.
	As we discussed in Committee, to make matters worse, those employees of private companies would undertake public police functions without being subject to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which the Bill will rightly set up and of which everybody approves. That body will deal with police officers and with CSOs, but it will not deal with those private sector accredited persons. Not only will they have dubious powers, but they will not even be accountable in the same way. We have tabled an amendment, which appears in the next group, on that point.
	I am sorry if I am being hard on the Minister when I say that in Committee he at no stage gave a philosophical justification for giving private sector employees these powers. He explained why it was necessary to have some people who exercised low-level police powersnobody disagrees with thatbut he has not explained why it is acceptable that they will not be democratically accountable in the way that CSOs will be and police officers clearly are at present.
	The Minister has also failed to address the point that members of the public may resent being confronted by a private sector employee who wishes to exercise police powers. That will cause further problems for policing at a time when we are trying to make it more acceptable and better rooted in the community. A member of the public who would be prepared to accept a ticket for littering or some other minor offence from a police officer, or even a CSO, may not be prepared to accept it in the same spirit from a Tesco employee. The Government must address the point that they will create problems in understanding the chain of accountability and the possibility that people will resist tickets and other enforcement measures that will form part of the powers that will be given to those accredited officers. The Minister is in danger of undermining respect for the law through allowing private sector employees to exercise those powers.

Simon Hughes: Connex, the railway company, has shown that it is possible to train staff to be police officers, because some of its staff have been sworn in as special constables. They have proper authority because they have had proper training. If the private sector wants to make a contribution, that is a much more legitimate, acceptable and effective way to do it. We have not heard much about that alternative, which, I suggest, the public would prefer.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for that intervention. The Connex experiment is an interesting one that perhaps the Government could build on, instead of seeking to create a new tier of accredited persons, who will not have that accountability.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I raised the same point in Committee. I said to the Minister that it was extraordinary that one Minister should suggest that the proposals in this Bill are the right way forward, at the same time as his colleague the Minister for Transport was doing lots of media work about the Connex experiment and claiming that specials were the way forward. I suggested that the Government were all over the shop on that point.

Norman Baker: I fear that that is so. In Committee, it also became clear that scant attention has been paid to the opportunity to increase the number of specials, when we should have concentrated on that approach. The number of specials has dropped dramatically in the past five years, and we now have only some 12,000. I put on record the fact that Ministers rejected attempts to improve conditions and provide a bounty payment for specials that my colleagues and I proposed in Committee. We made constructive suggestions in that area, and it is odd that the Government have rejected those suggestions while choosing to employ private sector employees in a quasi-policing role.
	I will not develop my arguments further because of the time factor, but this issue is of key importance, both practically and philosophically. It is wrong for private sector employees to be given police powers. Apart from the principle of the issue, they will act in the interests of the private company, not of the public. The measure will not be conducive to good policing, and the fact that the accredited persons will be outside the complaints procedure only underlines our determination to oppose the proposal. I give notice of our intention to divide the House on amendment No. 65, which relates to that proposal.

James Paice: The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) places my colleagues and myself in a slightly difficult position. While we agree with much of what he has said, we do not agree with the substantive content of his amendments. We have never made any secret of our concerns about the concept of accredited community support officers. That is not becauseas Labour Members have suggestedwe oppose the involvement of the voluntary sector. I have seen, as others have, countless examples of street wardens, neighbourhood wardens and ambassadorsthere are many different names for themvoluntarily helping the police. Some of them wear uniforms, and some do not. I have spoken to many people who provide that service and, without exception, they are happy to do so, but they do not want the powers envisaged in schedule 5.
	We strongly support those schemes, and I want them to be expanded and enlarged. I have no objection to the concept that there should be some form of accreditation to prove that the employees are worthwhile, that they meet certain minimum standards, and that the chief constable of their authority is happy with what they do.
	We were very worried about the proposal to give those employees police powers. I shall not repeat the Committee debate, but I have some sympathy with the proposition from the hon. Member for Lewes that schedule 5 should be abolished. I have slightly less sympathy with the proposal that all ACSOs should therefore come under schedule 4, although there is a clear logic in suggesting that only one set of powers should be granted to civilians, regardless of whether they are employed in the police service or outside it.
	However, we are concerned that the amendments would allow only local authority employees to become ACSOs. I suspect that, in that respect, I shall find that I am all square with the Minister. As he said in Committee, such a measure would place 35 per cent. of street warden schemes outside the requirements that have to be met by accredited community safety organisations. Ruling out such organisations seems a very short-sighted approach. I have therefore told the hon. Member for Lewes privately that the Opposition cannot support that proposal.
	The problem goes deeper, as Conservative Members do not share the Liberal Democrats' philosophical objection to using people who are not employed by local authorities. We would obviously be pleased if social landlords and other charitable organisations were to be involved in the scheme, but we are also happy in principle with the idea that private-sector bodiescar park operators, or the operators of large shopping malls, for instanceshould be involved. There is some logic in getting them involved, whether or not their operatives are given powers by the chief constable.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Lewes about special constables, however. When the Bill first appeared in the other place, we opposed the proposals on this matter, on the ground that using special constables would avoid all the problems about who had what powers. People know exactly who and what special constables are, and what powers they possess. Although we recognise the reality of the situationas the Minister did in a different context last nightand accept ACSOs as a concept, I entirely share the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman that, as yet, little seems to have been done to revitalise the special constabulary. However, that is a debate for another time, and the Committee did consider the matter.
	I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Member for Lewes that the Opposition will not support him if he presses the new clause to a Division. However, we have immense concerns about how ACSOs will settle down, not least because of the problem of accountability. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in his speech earlier, and the matter arose in Committee.
	There are also difficulties with regard to uniforms, and whether the officers will be readily recognisable. Other problems include training, and the way in which organisations that employ street or neighbourhood wardens become accredited. The Minister referred to that matter in Committee, but we are still worried about the transitional process involved before ACSOs can use the powers that their chief constable decides to allocate to them.
	Most street wardens get only a day or two of training. They may have some experience, but that is no substitute for training if they are to start using police powers. We expressed our major concerns about ACSOs in Committee: the Minister is well aware of them, and I hope and trust that he will have taken them on board. Our concerns are serious, and they need to be dealt with under the regulatory aspects of this part of the Bill.
	We accept that ACSOs will be introduced, and we welcome the concept of accrediting the many existing schemes. We retain reservations about the powers to be given to ACSOs, but we accept the situation in Parliament for what it is.
	Therefore, although I have much sympathy with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Lewes in moving the amendments, I am afraid that we will not be able to support him in the Lobby.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am ad idem with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on this matter, and believe that he made some important points in his speech.
	I do not know why the Government have not expanded the role of special constables over the past few years, or why they have not tried to recruit properly. The Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and other bodies fully support extending the recruitment of special constables, but I suspect that the Government have set their face against that idea because they do not want to pay for extra special constables, or accord them proper employment rights.
	I am not holding my breath, therefore, that there will be an expansion in the numbers of special constables in the foreseeable future. I am not alone in that belief. I hope that I am wrong, for the sake of good policing in the future, but I suspect that I may be right.
	I also agree that CSOs could cause resentment and confusion. Traffic wardens are very often subjected to abuse nowadays, even though they are not a recent innovation. They have been around a good many years, and are readily recognisable, but they are nevertheless abused constantly for carrying out their lawful duties.
	Policing is a highly specialised occupation. It is a tall order just to expect someone to understand the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, yet that legislation is a basic tenet of police practice.
	I believe that the police service as a whole will be brought into disrepute when the ACSOs fail, as they unfortunately will. Police officers will be tarred with the same brush. The proposal smacks of policing on the cheap.
	Police officers ask who will train these people. Who will be with them out on the beat, training them in the proper practice of policing? It is appalling that such people will not be subject to independent scrutiny. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is so.
	We do not ask police officers to treat injuries or diagnose illnesses, any more than we ask doctors to be police officers. Both careers are important, and deserve proper respect.
	Finally, the notion of hobby bobbies is an awful one.

Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) clarify new clause 9(1), which states:
	The chief officer of any police force may designate any person who is a local authority employee as a community support officer?
	It does not say that the employee should be designated as an ACSO. Is that intentional, or is it a drafting error? Is it the intention that the person involved should continue to be employed by the local authority? The Bill makes it clear that CSOs will be employed by the police.

Norman Baker: I am happy to clarify that we want CSOs to be employed either by local authorities or by the police. We are not in favour of the accredited scheme for the private sector, which is quite different, but I had to deal with both issues in one new clause.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. The reservations that I had before are even greater now.
	My local authority is the London borough of Havering. It already employs community wardens, and the scheme is working well. The wardens have good relationships with the local police and with members of the community. Their red jackets make them instantly identifiable, and no one mistakes them for police officers. However, the introduction of another tier of officers employed by local authorities would cause a great deal of confusion.

Simon Hughes: I know, in general terms, the arrangements that exist in Havering, and other London boroughs have similar schemes. We do not want to undermine those arrangements. However, if a firm such as Sainsbury's wishes to have community support officers or neighbourhood wardens, for example, we propose that, instead of employing those officers itself, the firm should pay money to the police or the local authority. In that way, the police or the local authority would have a contract with the firm, but the officers would be police or local authority employees. We want to determine where the accountability lies, but we do not want to prevent bodies other than the local authority from helping with policing.

Angela Watkinson: That is several steps too far for me, and I regret that I will be unable to support the new clause.

Annette Brooke: I was rather hoping that more Members would share our vision, particularly as in the previous debate speakers on both sides of the House agreed with our basic premise about giving police authorities more accountability. This proposition is largely about accountability and effectiveness.
	There is confusion over all the categories in the Bill. People frequently use the wrong termsa CSO could mean community support officer in one context, with accreditation in another. Confusion is not the best way to support the police and give the public what they want. The different powers are very confusing. The Government's response to the report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs refers to the various uniforms and badges that might be worn and says:
	Both designated and accredited people will be expected to carry with them details of any powers they have been given.
	One is tempted to ask whether that is because they need to remember their powers.
	I recall a fictitious example in Committee, which was very amusing at the time. A member of the Committee suggested that how he was treated would depend on which side of the road he stood, which would be confusing. If he were on one side, he might feel reassured that he could simply ask the appropriate officer to empty his or her pockets.
	The main thing about deterrence is certainty, but these people will not be easily recognised because different uniforms could be worn. I do not think that the different layers will be immediately understood by the public. The resulting uncertainty will mean that the important deterrent effect is lost. If everybody is clear about the role of the people walking around, that will deter people from committing antisocial behaviour.
	My local authority has just taken over the powers of traffic wardens from the police. The council wanted to widen the jobs that they might do. If a traffic warden who sees broken glass on the road picks up the phone and tells someone about it, that is sensible. However, there were difficulties with the transfer of powers. I do not think that it will be as easy as the Minister suggested last night to re-engage with a different title. Our amendments would improve matters, giving genuine support to the police and, fundamentally, giving the public the support that they want.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Bill and oppose new clause 9. In common with most Members who represent urban constituencies, I have, over the years, seen the balance of complaints and concerns expressed at my advice bureau change from those of housing to those of quality of life, including neighbour nuisance, vandalism committed by young people and harassment. It has become obvious to me that even with the scheduled increase in police numbers, we need a force out there to deal with the low-level nuisance that can have such an effect on people.

Norman Baker: I agree.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's agreement. It is a question of how we set up the organisations to deal with that, and I will come to that shortly.
	It has also been obvious to me that whatever we spend on education and health will count for nothing if we cannot address these specific quality of life issues.

Elfyn Llwyd: Would the hon. Gentleman be opposed to expanding the special constabulary? Would that not deal with the problems that he describes?

Adrian Bailey: I welcome that intervention. The short answer is no, but I should like to deal with it in a little more detail later.
	All other improvements in public services are meaningless if people are frightened to leave their home in case they are harassed or mugged. That is particularly true of elderly people. The irony is that, statistically, elderly people are far less likely to be involved in a mugging or a burglary than young people, but the fear of crime among them is far greater and has a far greater impact on their quality of life.
	I am sure that other Members agree that when we knock on doors and see people at our advice surgeries, the overwhelming demand is for more bobbies on the beat. We have all heard the slogan. However, a highly trained policeman walking around an area is probably the least effective way of combating crime. Professional hardened criminals are hardly likely to carry out their activities within sight of a policeman and they have the means of moving on rather more quickly than a bobby on the beat.
	What people really want is a person with authority, in a uniform, to offer reassurance, which is the key. I remember, as a child, playing on a football pitch in the local park when I should not have been. When I saw the park keeper approach in his uniform, I was off, to engage in more licit activities, as it were. That is the sort of reaction that we want from young people who may be engaged in activities that impair quality of life, that are not illegal but need to be countered. The prospect of a person in uniform having a presence in areas where that sort of activity takes place is immensely reassuring and, conversely, acts as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour.
	We are recruiting more police, but it is questionable whether in urban areas such as mine, even with a huge increase in police numbers, we would have sufficient numbers to carry out that role or even whether it would be an effective use of officers.

Norman Baker: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far. However, does he believe that the group of people whom we both want could be employed by local authorities as well as the police, as new clause 9 suggests? Secondly, does he believe that it is right for private sector companies to employ people with police powers?

Adrian Bailey: I will deal with those points very quickly. The various agencies involved in curbing the problem must work together. That involves local authorities, and I think that accreditation schemes are very worthy because they take partnership working, which has been built up at local level, another step forward. However, I cannot see why that should be confined to local authority employees. In different circumstances, it may be necessary to involve private sector employees. The example of a shopping mall has already been given. The more organisations that have an interest in social supervision, training people and working together with the police, the better it will be.
	I shall briefly deal with the issue about the specials raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). Yes, I do believe in the specialsthey do a grand jobbut the hon. Gentleman missed the essential point that most of them already have a full-time occupation and do the job because of their commitment to the community and the ideals of the force that they wish to serve. They do not necessarily want to do that job full-time. To suggest that such problems could be dealt with simply by expanding the special constabulary is to believe a myth.

Elfyn Llwyd: That is exactly why I said that special constables should be paid. There would then be more recruitment and, although part-time, they would be fully trained. They would also accrue employment rights, which is want the Government do not want.

Adrian Bailey: Whether they should be paid is part of a bigger debate, but the payment issue would not substantially alter the need for community support officers, the thrust of the Bill and our reasons for opposing the new clause.

Simon Hughes: I want to make a brief point to support the case that my hon. Friends have put in Committee and in the Chamber. One of the reasons why I am disappointed that the Government do not understand the merit of our argument that such people should be accountable is that there will be no common standards and practices if different organisations and private companies employ security officers to do the police's support job in any local authority in the land.
	In reality, there will be different codes of conduct and those involved will work in different ways. No one can possibly manage to get them all to work in a similar way. As my hon. Friend the Member for MidDorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said, various organisations will have different powers, and those organisations will sometimes have to check which powers they have.
	However, there is another civics and citizenship point. If we are trying to get youngsterssecondary school children and teenagersto pay respect to authority, it is far better that they understand that authority resides in people who are publicly accountable and have status in society. I do not know what the experience of colleagues has been, but security guards in shopping centres and car parks are not shown that respect. They are seen not as the representatives of law and order in society, but as looking after the private interests of those with cars in the car parks or shops in the shopping centres.
	If we want young people to respect authority, we will mitigate the chances of that by having all sorts of people sharing all sorts of self-defining authority. That will significantly reduce youngsters' respect for the law. I am sad that the Government do not believe that it would be better for the police to police and for them to be accountable only to police authorities or local authorities so that complaints can be raised with properly accountable citizens.

John Denham: I shall try to reply briefly because many of the issues were aired in Committee. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asks for a philosophical argument. I think that a Victorian, Edward Whimper, when asked why he climbed mountains, was the first to answer, Because they are there. That is part of the answer to this question. Neighbourhood wardens, street wardens, security guards and those responsible for co-ordinating security in major shopping centres are playing the role today.
	The accreditation scheme is intended to enable those various people to be effectively co-ordinated by and with the police, but Liberal Democrat Members wish to pass up that opportunity. Indeed, they would go further than simply passing it up; they wish to exclude, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, a third of all the neighbourhood and street warden schemes because they are run by registered social landlords or other similar bodies. They would be taken out of accreditation. Ironically, the police would undoubtedly still wish to work with those organisations because they exist, but they would be outside any standards and accreditation framework. It is very difficult to understand how that is an advantage over the system that we propose.
	The lines of accountability are clear. For example, chief officers will have responsibilities with regard to the accreditation scheme, including the responsibility to ensure that there are clear lines of accountability, complaint systems and so on. There clearly is flexibility about the powers that can be deployed. We discussed that issue last night, but I merely point out that we are discussing the power to make people give their names and addresses, to issue a fixed-penalty notice for riding on the pavement, or to do the same things as local authority dog wardens. In a sense, it is right to say that those are police powers. They certainly conjure up an image of normal policing powers, although they are pretty low-level, but important, public disorder issues.
	The amendments would have a serious consequence: they would exclude a large number of very good schemes and make it quite impossible to co-ordinate effectively and properly with private sector providers. They would have the effect of ensuring that anyone from a local authority had to exercise the full powers of a community support officer. We have taken the view that the higher powers should be exercised only by those who work for the police service and are directly employed and accountable to the chief constable.
	The hon. Member for Lewes wishes to give local authority employeesthey may well be dog wardens or litter wardensthe full powers of CSOs. Even though they work for a local authority, there would not be the accountability to the chief officer that exists under our proposals. Finally, the hon. Gentleman wants the local authority to approve every single named individual appointed as a CSO by a chief officer. What a recipe for bureaucratic nonsense and disaster that would represent.
	I refute the idea that we are not interested in the specials, but the point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that we cannot expect those in what is essentially a volunteer force working in their own time to fulfil the patrolling and reassurance duties carried out by full-time employees during their working week. It would be a mistake to do that.
	In Committee, I clearly set outI shall not do so again nowour commitment to reverse the decline in the number of specials and the measures that we are taking to encourage the further recruitment of specials. Those hon. Members who have sought to say that, somehow, the promotion of CSOs or accredited community safety officers represents an alternative in the Government's view to the promotion of specials are, frankly, wrong, and I say that quite genuinely. The advantage of specials has been undersold for many years and to some degree I regret the perhaps inevitable fact that all the focus on the new issueCSOs and ACSOshas overshadowed the importance that the Government give to specials as part of the police reform process.
	I briefly want to say a couple of other things. This has not been the subject of debate, but I should point out that the Government amendments will involve the Mayor of London in a limited consultation role in relation to ACSOs. That is in line with the type of consultation powers with other local authority bodies that were introduced in another place. It is limited to ACSOs because that parallels other legislation.
	Finally, I want make an important point, which has been only touched on, about police authorities and the appointment of CSOs. Police authorities have been concerned about their right to consultation on the appointment of CSOs. In common with other support staff, the right to engage and dismiss civilians lies with chief officers and has been considered as an operational matter. However, I want to make it clear that the Government will expect chief officers fully to consult police authorities before embarking on the employment and designation of CSOs. I cannot imagine that any chief officer would not wish to do so, but I would certainly cover that issue in the code of practice under clause 46 when it is issued if such problems become apparent.

Norman Baker: I certainly welcome the last point that the Minister makes, as the issue was raised in Committee. I also agree with him on consulting the Mayor of London, although I am not sure whether I agree on very much else in his contribution. I shall try to respond very briefly, given the time pressures that we are under.
	First, there is nothing wrong with having street wardens. I continually said in Committee that they are a jolly good thing and that they do a very useful job. There is nothing wrong with treating them as we treat bouncers. They should have a code of practice to ensure that they behave in a certain way and that they meet common standards. There is nothing wrong with trying to pull them into the crime and disorder partnership. However, I disagree with the Government because they want to give police powers to such wardens. The essential difference is that we think that they should not have police powers.
	The Government view those people as a cheap to produce alternative arm of policing from the private sector. We do not accept that; it is a philosophical difference. Why should I be given a ticket for riding a bike on a pavement by an employee of Jarvis? That is what the Bill will specifically allow. I cited that example in Committee, and the Minister accepted that that will be the case. In fact, he said that it was a good idea that organisations such as Jarvis and those in the railway industry would have the power to issue tickets for cycling on pavements. That is what we facethe Government's proposals do not make sense. The Minister says that he did not say anything of the sort, but the Hansard report of the Committee will show that he did. Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to try to remove those powers from railway accredited persons.

Boris Johnson: If ACSOs are not going to stop the hon. Gentleman from riding on a pavement, who is?

Norman Baker: Perhaps a community support officer with those powers who is an employee of the police or the local authoritysomeone who is democratically accountable and properly trained; not an employee of Jarvis or Tesco. That is the answer to that point.
	The Minister is right that we want to give all CSOs full powers. We want them to be properly trained, and we want to ensure that a traffic warden, for instanceor someone else who has been properly trainedcan deal with an incident on the street. They should not have to ring up someone else because they do not have that power. They should be able to deal with it there and then. We do not want a situation in which people have different powers in their pockets according to which side of the street or which borough they happen to be on or in. That is a recipe for confusion, and the Minister has not addressed that point.
	As I am conscious of time, I shall not pursue this matter further. I am not satisfied with the Minister's response, however, and I shall want to divide the House on amendment No. 65 at the appropriate juncture. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9
	  
	The Independent Police Complaints Commission

Chris Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 23, after Majesty, insert
	'on an address presented by the House of Commons and proposed by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in clause 12, page 15, line 29, at end insert
	'(d) he is a person accredited under section 41.
	(e) he is a person accredited under section 43.'.

Chris Mullin: The amendment was tabled by me and colleagues from all parties on the Select Committee. It is a modest little amendment that gives effect to one of the recommendations in our recent report on the Bill. It requires only the tiniest touch of the tiller in the direction of Parliament and away from the Executive.
	Clause 9 currently provides for the chairman of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission to be appointed by Her Majesty, which, in effect, means the Secretary of State or on his recommendation. My amendment would make no difference to the selection process, which would continue to be carried out in line with the procedure set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, with the sole exception that once a candidate had been chosen, the Home Secretary would have to secure the agreement of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.
	We must bear it in mind that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is supposed to be independentthe word is in the title. One of the reasons the Police Complaints Authority has lacked credibility in the past is that in the eyes of many people it was not sufficiently independent of those whose activities it was supposed to scrutinise. With all due respect, it is no good the Minister saying, We've always done it this way. The very reason we are having to revisit the subject is the widespread recognitionby both police and publicthat the body suffered from a credibility problem in its previous incarnation. The purpose of the proposal is to draw a line under the past and to give the Independent Police Complaints Commission some street credibility. My little amendment seeks to enhance that credibility by giving Parliament a say in the final choice of chairman.

Lady Hermon: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, under legislation passed by the Housethe Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998a police ombudsman was set up for Northern Ireland. The Act states:
	The Ombudsman shall be appointed by Her Majesty.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that the independence of the police ombudsman, having been appointed by Her Majesty, is in any way belittled by that appointment procedure.

Chris Mullin: No, I am not suggesting that, but there is always room for a little improvement here and there. As I said, I am making a modest suggestion, a tiny touch on the tiller in favour of Parliament and away from the Executive.
	There are those who believe that Parliament should take a far closer interest in public appointments made by Ministers. Five years ago, the Treasury Committee went so far as to propose that it should be allowed to conduct confirmation hearings for members of the Monetary Policy Committee. One of those who pressed that view was the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who was then a rising Back Bencher. I take comfort, therefore, from knowing that the idea that Parliament should have a say in some public appointments is not entirely without friends in the higher reaches of Government.
	There will be those who say that there are no precedents. There is a precedent of sorts, however, although the parallel is not precise. Section 1 of the National Audit Act 1983 provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be appointed by the Queen on an address presented by the House of Commons and proposed by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. All I am suggesting is that an arrangement along those lines be devised for appointing the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
	There will be those who see this as the thin end of a wedge. I hope that it is the thin end of at least a small wedge. Clearly, most of the appointments made by the Home Secretary are not suitable for this kind of treatment. When such posts involve executive functions on behalf of the Government, such as the head of the Prison Service or the chief executive of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, there is clearly no case for the involvement of Parliament. However, inspectors, regulators or ombudsmen depend for their credibility on being able to demonstrate their independence of Government. It is, therefore, in the interests of everyone, including the Home Secretary, that Parliament should have a role in their appointment. I am sure that, when the Minister reflects on the matter, he will be overwhelmed by my argument.

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief in referring to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and, moving ahead, to amendment No. 3, to which I anticipate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will speak in a moment.
	We understand the basis of both amendments. We have added our names to amendment No. 3, although the Liberal Democrat names appear first, and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has added his name. Three Opposition parties therefore support amendment No. 3.
	We carefully considered the Select Committee's recommendation. We can see that there is merit in having parliamentary involvement in the appointment, and we will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland, South will be aware that we expressed the same kind of concerns in Committee about parliamentary scrutiny of the IPCC. I am sure that he has considered what was said then. We raised similar concerns about the House having a role in the way in which the IPCC should operate. We therefore see much merit in the Select Committee's suggestion of an advise and consent procedure for the appointment of the IPPC's chairman, which would be a further guarantee of the chairman's independence.
	On amendment No. 3, we sought to support what the Liberal Democrats had to say. I do not wish to take up the time of the House, however, so I shall let the Liberal Democrat spokesman speak to it.

David Winnick: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. I have no doubt that the Minister will give reasons why the amendment should not be accepted. I am more than happy to be disappointed, but I would be most surprised were the answer affirmative, as I would wish.
	As my hon. Friend said, there is a strong case for the chairman of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission to be seen as independent in every respect. The difficulty is not that the wrong person would be appointed as the chairmanthe choice of chairman is likely to be a good one; I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, the suspicion would benot necessarily among Members of Parliament but in the outside worldthat the Government would choose a person who can be relied upon not to be too independent. In a sense, he would be perceived as the Government's nominee.
	I am sure that such suspicions would have no foundation, but it is important that the chairman is seen as independent in every possible way. One way of doing that is to follow the suggestion in the amendment. The person would be appointed in the normal way, but confirmed by, among others, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
	An important factor should not be overlooked. The House of Commons or the Select Committee would not make the appointment. They would not put advertisements in the newspapers and would not be responsible for vetting the candidates and drawing up a shortlist. That power will remain with the Home Office. The only difference would be that the person appointed would go through a slightly different procedure. The amendment refers to
	agreement with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.
	In practice, that would mean that the person appointed would appear before the Select Committee, but it is not a question of its Chairman just saying yea or nay.
	What is wrong with someone appointed by the Home Office appearing in front of the Select Committee before the appointment is confirmed? I find it difficult to believe that anyone of quality who wants to do the job and recognises its importance would be deterred by the fact that he would have to appear before the Committee. I accept that there is a theoretical possibility that the appointment would not be confirmed, but that is extremely unlikely.
	The amendment is a step forward. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I have no doubt that, if the positions were reversed and he were the Minister and not the shadow spokesperson, he would make exactly the same arguments as, I am afraid, my right hon. Friend the Minister will make.
	We have yet to recognise the important role that Parliament could play in appointments to important jobs such as chairing the new complaints commission that will examine allegations against the police. Sometimes such allegations are serious, which is all the more reason that the person appointed to head the commission not only has integrity and authority to carry out the work, but is seen as independent. If that person is simply appointed by the Home Office in the usual way, the danger is that his independence will not be recognised outside the House. That would be most unfortunate.

Norman Baker: On amendment No. 1, I am always happy for the power of Parliament to be extended at the expense of the Executive. I am therefore content to support the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). His amendment is a modest affair and, like him, I cannot imagine how the Government could find a reason to reject it. I await to hear the Minister's response.
	Equally, I cannot see how the Minister could possibly reject the very modest amendment in my name, those of my colleagues and of those on the Conservative Front Bench. It relates to the IPCC and the Minister will know that everyone has supported that aspect of the Bill. Everyone recognises that it is an important innovation. There have been problems with the public believing that investigations into the police have not been carried out properly or independently, and the Minister and his colleagues have acted to remedy such problems in a way that we all support. They have recognised the problem and have found the right solution, so it is difficult to understand why they have decided to exclude from the process the very people who are furthest from democratic accountability, namely those who are employed by the private sector. That makes no sense at all.
	The Minister is in danger of re-creating the position that applies now. The Bill wishes to get rid of that by introducing an independent element into the process so that people have confidence in those exercising police powers. He is re-creating the problem in a very unfortunate manner.
	The answer that the Minister gave in Committee and in response to the previous debate was, Well, the chief officer of police sets up the complaints procedure or oversees it. He may set it up, but that is about the end of it. The Minister has said that, when there is a complaint against a person from Tesco, that person will be investigated by Tesconot by anybody else. Is Mr. Tesco going to say to that person, You've done something terribly wrong. You are a disgrace to the company. Yes, we'll tell the local newspapers that you've brought our name down in the public mind? Or will Mr. Tesco say, That was not very wise. We had better hush it up because it is not in our commercial interest to let people know what has happened? In other words, those policing the complaints system in such circumstances are judge and jury of their employees and have a direct interest in concluding matters in a way that benefits their companies and not necessarily the public interest.
	I honestly do not understand why the Minister resists that argument. Of course, the IPCC will not investigate every single complaint; we do not expect it to investigate every single complaint against a police officer. However, it must have the opportunity to call complaints in, examine processes that are not working and consider what needs to be done. It must have that option. If it does not, the message will go to Tesco, Jarvis and other employers that they can do what they like, because there will be nothing to control them or alter what they do when they consider complaints.
	I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter either here or in another place. The Minister is simply wrong on this issue.

George Osborne: I shall briefly respond to the persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I also want to take the opportunity to say how useful members of the Standing Committee found the Select Committee's report. It was an extremely useful guide, and it is a shame that only one member of the Select Committee served on the Standing Committee. Perhaps Parliament should consider that point.
	The Executive's powers of patronage and appointment are among their least-scrutinised powers. Those, such as Lord Norton of Louth and the Hansard Society, who have considered reform of this place have drawn attention to way in which the House should scrutinise appointments. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a good one.
	I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and I am aware of the precedents that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As he conceded, the amendment would create a slightly broader precedent. Indeed, it would be the thin end of a very good wedge.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman briefly explain what would happen if there were a disagreement between the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee? Would not the Chairman, in effect, have a veto over an appointment?

George Osborne: That probably would be the case. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has a veto over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Such a veto would be a good thing, but its use would be unusual. It would be a check of last resort.
	I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and will put himself in the great tradition of Cromwell and Simon de Montfort and expand the powers of the House of Commons. No one is paying any attention at the moment, so all he has to do is nod the amendment through and put himself in the annals of history.

John Denham: I have some sympathy with the amendment, although not quite enough.
	Leaving aside the constitutional issue, I share the fundamental aim of securing the reputation of the independence of the IPCC, but the case has not been made that an appointment by Her Majesty through Ministers undermines confidence in the independence of the system. By far the greater part of the credibility of the IPCC will come not from the appointment system for the chairman, but from the transparency of the system. Complainants will have many more rights and there will be fewer opportunities for their complaints to disappear out of the system without being addressed. That is the most important proposal in this part of the Bill.
	The issue is whether Parliament wants to embark on a wholesale change of the nature of accountability for a great many appointments. I accept that that argument is the thin end of the wedge. The appointment of the chairman of the IPCC cannot be dealt with as a one-off. I refer the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee to the conclusions of the Nolan committee in 1995, which no doubt he knows well. It carefully considered whether Select Committees should be given a role and came down firmly against such an alternative concluding:
	We did not feel that any of our witnesses or correspondents has presented a convincing proposal for providing public accountability other than through the established route of Ministerial accountability to Parliament.
	The Home Secretary will, of course, have overall accountability to Parliament for all matters relating to the IPCC.
	It could be argued that the committee's conclusion was not right or will not last for ever and that a profound change in the relationship between Select Committees and public appointments should take place. I am interested in debating that, but the chairmanship of the IPCC should not be picked out at random and used as the example on which we base that change.
	On the complaints system, it is important that the IPCC can concentrate on the vast bulk of its work, which is to deal with complaints against police officers. It is worth remembering that people such as dog wardens, park keepers and environmental health officers have for years been exercising police powers, as described by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I am not aware of anyone arguing that they should be brought within the remit of the Police Complaints Authority or that there have been examples of abuses of those powers that have not been dealt with satisfactorily. The chief constable will have the important responsibility of ensuring that an adequate complaints procedure is in place for anyone who is an accredited organisation. That does not necessarily have to be the internal complaints procedure of the organisation concerned. However, that decision would have to be resolved at local level.
	I fear that extending the IPCC's coverage at this stage to a range of new people in accredited organisations who operate low-level disorder and nuisance powers would divert the attention of the IPCC from the business that it has to do for the public to have confidence in the police service. Our measures will ensure that there is adequate public protection and an adequate system for dealing with complaints wherever there is an accredited community safety officer.

Chris Mullin: I found the Minister's speech unsurprising and not entirely convincing. The Select Committee will take a close interest in the work of the IPCC when it is established and no doubt its chairman will visit us. I hope that Parliament will return from time to time to the general issue of the extent to which it should have a say in some public appointments of regulators. However, I do not intend to press the matter and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3
	  
	Handling of Complaints and Conduct matters etc.

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 138, line 28, leave out from duty to a, in line 29 and insert
	'to give a person mentioned in subparagraph (9) notification of the findings of the report by sending that person'.
	No. 55, in page 139, line 46, leave out from duty to a, in line 29 and insert
	'to give a person mentioned in subparagraph (7) notification of the findings of the report by sending that person'.[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 38
	  
	Police powers for police authority employees

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 39, line 29, leave out from beginning to second the, in line 30, and insert
	'Powers and duties may be conferred or imposed on a designated person by means only of the application to him by his designation of provisions of'.[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 39
	  
	Police powers for contracted-out staff

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 40, line 37, leave out from beginning to second the, in line 38, and insert
	'Powers and duties may be conferred or imposed on a designated person by means only of the application to him by his designation of provisions of'.[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 40
	  
	Community Safety Accreditation Schemes

Amendment proposed: No. 65, in page 41, line 37, leave out Clause 40.[Norman Baker.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendments made: No. 26, in clause 40, in page 41, line 40, leave out from Scheme) to police in line 41, and insert .
	(1A) A community safety accreditation scheme is a scheme for the exercise in the chief officer's'.
	No. 27, in page 42, line 2, after force, insert
	'(other than the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis)'.
	No. 28, in page 42, line 4, at end insert
	'(3A) Before establishing a community safety accreditation scheme for the metropolitan police district, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must consult with
	(a) the Metropolitan Police Authority;
	(b) the Mayor of London; and
	(c) every local authority any part of whose area lies within the metropolitan police district.'.
	No. 29, in page 42, line 5, leave out subsection (3)(b) and insert subsections (3)(b) and (3A)(c).[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 43
	  
	Railway safety accreditation scheme

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 44, line 46, after Police insert Force.
	No. 31, in page 45, line 3, after Police insert Force.
	No. 32, in page 45, line 38, after Police insert Force.
	No. 33, in page 45, line 43, after authorities;'insert
	'(ea) the Mayor of London;'.
	No. 34, in page 45, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 47.[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 44
	  
	Removal of restriction on powers conferred on traffic wardens

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 46, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert
	'(1) Section 96 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (additional powers of traffic wardens) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)(c) (powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) which may be conferred on traffic wardens), after sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted
	(ia) section 67(3) (which relates to the power of a constable in uniform to stop vehicles for testing);.
	(3) In subsection (3)'.[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 45
	  
	Power to amend Chapter 1

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 46, line 16, leave out Clause 45.[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 46
	  
	Code of practice relating to chief officers' powers under Chapter 1

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 47, line 33, after police; insert
	'(fa) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of local authorities;
	(fb) the Mayor of London;'.
	No. 38, in page 47, line 39, at end insert
	'(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(fa), local authorities means district councils, London borough councils, county councils in Wales, county borough councils, the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.'.[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 4
	  
	Powers exercisable by police civilians

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 145, line 15, leave out paragraph 2.
	I do not intend to detain the House long. Those who have followed the proceedings of the Bill know that what the Minister says is more important than the amendment. The House knows that the power of detention to be given to civilians is highly controversial. The other place rejected it; it was re-inserted by the Government in Committee, and the amendment seeks to reverse that and restore the schedule to the state in which it returned to this place.
	The heart of the matter is whether we should allow civilians to be so intrusive into civil rights as to detain somebody for 30 minutes. There are many practical issues, such as what happens if a police officer does not arrive within 30 minutes, and what happens if, when he does arrive, he does not agree with the decision to detain the individual. There are issues such as the principle of policing whereby after a person is detained or arrested, he is removed from the street as soon as possible, so that he does not become the focus of further agitation, disruption or disorder. All those are serious problems.
	I shall not rehearse the arguments, as they have been thoroughly rehearsed before. When we debated the matter in Committee, I acknowledged that at least one sector of the police forcethe Metropolitan policewants to be able to give the power to some of its civilian officers. We have made a point of listening to the various voices of the police throughout the country. We recognise that there is a demand for the power of detention, but we remain immensely concerned.
	I suggested that if the Minister were prepared to consider some sort of pilot arrangements, we would view them favourably. I am anxious to hear whether, after much deliberation, he intends to present such proposals. We remain of the view that the power of detention generally should not be available to civilians, but we are prepared to consider some form of test process.

John Denham: I shall not speak long, as a number of Back-Bench Members wish to speak in the debate. It would be helpful to place on the record the intentionindeed, the commitmentof the Government with regard to the introduction of community support officers with the power to detain with reasonable force, and how we will approach the matter of piloting. I do not wish to rehearse the debate about the powers themselves other than to say that I fully recognise that concerns have been expressed about CSOs' power to detain with reasonable force.
	In the light of those concerns, the Government have considered how we can ensure that the power is introduced in a controlled manner. We want to allow for it to be tested in practice in a sufficient number of varied forces to gain experience of its operation before it is made available to all police forces in England and Wales. First, we invited Sir Keith Povey, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabularyand he agreedto monitor and to take responsibility for evaluating the use of the power in the first two years after the commencement of this part of the Act. Secondly, during the first two years after the commencement of the Act, the maximum number of forces that will be allowed to deploy CSOs with the power to use detention with reasonable force will be six. We settled on that number following consultation with the chief inspector of constabulary. We will use the commencement powers in clause 103 to enforce that limit. Thirdly, no other forces will be allowed to deploy CSOs with the power of detention until the report of the chief inspector's evaluation has been published and laid before the House, allowing chief officers in particularas well as others, of courseto consider its conclusions before deciding whether to deploy CSOs with those powers. I should make it clear that that approach would not preclude other police forces from employing CSOs, but without the power of detention with reasonable force.
	One of the forces that wishes to deploy CSOs with that power is the Metropolitan police service, which in itself constitutes a significant part of the police service in England and Wales. I have discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis how widely he expects to deploy CSOs with that power over the next two years. Understandably, he does not wish to impose an arbitrary limit, especially given the interest shown by a number of boroughs in working with the MPS to provide additional CSOs. To avoid confusion, the commissioner wishes all CSOs based in the community in London to have the same powers. With the exception of those employed on transport routes in conjunction with Transport for London, CSOs will normally be deployed in one particular borough by agreement with the local authority. It is difficult at the present time to estimate the level of take-up, but there is nothing to suggest that any more than half the boroughsthat is, 16will take up the option within the next two years, and I believe that the figure may be somewhat lower than that. That is the best indication that I can give of the position in London.
	I hope that in the light of such undertakings hon. Members will feel that rather than delete the power entirely from the Bill, this framework will allow the pilots to take place and to be evaluated independently of Ministers, and for the results of that evaluation to be released before the power is made more generally available across the police service, which would itself depend on the outcome of the evaluation.

Norman Baker: The Minister will know that there has been considerable disquiet about the suggestion that non-police officers should have the power to detain. That has been expressed not only by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, but by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by police officers around the country. It is therefore welcome that the Government have listened. It is welcome that they have removed detention powers from accredited officers. It is also sensible that they have decided not to go hell for leather in going as far as they can with CSOs in the initial stages. It may seem churlish to say that we cannot support what the Government have done because we would like them to go further. We are in favour of a pilot scheme, but one that tries out CSOs without the power of detention, and then allows police forces to say that they have not worked without the power of detention. That would be a safer route than trying them with the power of detention.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) rehearsed some of the arguments as to why there is significant opposition to giving the power of detention to people who are not police officers. There is insufficient time to go through those arguments again, as there is only five minutes to go before the guillotine comes down. However, the fact that neither the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire nor I have rehearsed the objections does not undermine their validity because they are serious and widely held. By giving non-police officers the power to detain, we cross the rubicon, and we are unhappy about that.
	The Minister said that there would be some safeguards. I welcome the involvement, as far as it goes, of the chief inspector of constabulary. That is a sensible move. I also welcome the fact that a maximum number of forces will be involved. However, I am bound to say that the opposition to CSOs generally, which chief constables throughout the country have expressed, means that it is unlikely that more than six forces will wish to have them, let alone those with the power to detain. The Minister scrabbles around, mentions the Met and Northamptonshire and subsequently runs out of places that have expressed a wish for CSOs without having their arms twisted. He will be hard pushed to find more than six forces to accept them; he has not therefore made that much of a concession.
	The Minister has accepted some of the legitimate arguments against the power to detain. I acknowledge that he has tried to devise a compromise that allays anxieties. I welcome the distance that he has travelled, but I regret that he has not gone far enough for my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me. We cannot accept the principle of giving non-police officers the power to detain.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), although I welcome the pilot scheme and fact that it will be evaluated. However, the possible conflicts that CSOs with the power of detention will face may prove overwhelming. They will often have to deal with antisocial behaviour and drunkenness, from which aggression and violence can emanate. That is a mistake, and I believe that the pilot scheme will show that. However, I give the Government due credit.
	Any practitioner in criminal law will say that reasonable force is a difficult concept. There are so many precedents and cases determined on the phrase that it will be difficult for a person with less training than an ordinary police officer to decide when to balance it to a nicety, in the words of an established case. The power of detention will give rise to court cases, and I believe that it may fall into disrepute. It involves great dangers and I am therefore wary of it. It will not be widely used and it will ultimately die, but I am pleased that the Government are prepared to consider it in pilot form.

James Paice: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said that he believed that the power of detention by non-police officers would prove a mistake, and he may be right. Like the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), we have always maintained that it is not necessary to give CSOs the power to detain. However, I acknowledge that there are those in the Metand probably only in the Metwho want such powers, and I do not want to deny them the opportunity of at least trying them out.
	I welcome the Minister's comments. However, I suspect that we have won what may prove to be a pyrrhic victory. The hon. Member for Lewes is probably right that the Government will not find more than six forces that want the powers. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened to the arguments and recognised the genuine anxieties that not only Conservative Members but the Police Federation and almost everyone in the police, apart from the Met, have expressed. I am now placed in something of a quandary, because in my view, the Minister has given me what I wanted to get out of this debate: a very clear pledge for pilot schemes. What he has said is all on record, and I welcome his comments. I also welcome the role of the chief inspector of constabulary.
	Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, as the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition have taken the same view on the issue with which the amendment deals. I do not wish my colleagues to support the amendment, as I believe that the Minister has gone far enough, but in deference to its fellow signatories, I shall not ask leave to withdraw it, as I know that they wish to pursue the matter and I would rather not be put into the position of having my request for withdrawal opposed. That may sound pusillanimous, but I am trying to be fair to everybody, and I conclude by thanking the Minister, as I welcome the commitments that he has made.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being after Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.

John Denham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We are quite close to the end of a process that began for me about a year ago, just after the general election, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I picked up the mantle of police reform. I thank all Members who contributed to debates during the Bill's passage through the Housein particular, the members of the Home Affairs Committee, whose report was extremely useful. The Committee carried out a valuable inquiry, which was perhaps not entirely pre-legislative scrutiny because the Committee did not have the full legislation to scrutinise in the way that it might have liked. None the less, it was very helpful in drawing out the major issues.
	From the Opposition Front Benches, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) have contributed fully, particularly during discussions in the main Chamber. I especially want to acknowledge the work of the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who carried the bulk of the debate in Committeethough not all of it, of coursefor their respective parties. I am also grateful for the thoughtful and well-informed interventions from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who made a valuable contribution in Committee and, indeed, throughout proceedings.
	Several of my colleagues on the Government Benches took part, including, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) as well as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I am particularly grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who ably took on part 2 of the Bill in Committee.
	The Bill arrived in the House much amended from discussions in another place, and it has been further amended here. I have no embarrassment in sayingno Minister ever shouldthat the Bill is better today than when the Government published it. I am one of those who believes in the role of parliamentary scrutiny. While one or two things that have happened in the closing stages reflect other realities, much change results from careful scrutiny in the House and in another place.
	As many Members have said, there is a great deal of agreement on the Bill. I shall outline briefly its main purposes and how we believe that it will work. It is worth acknowledging that, in addition to some initial aims, we have achieved significant changes that will help the police service and others to fight crime. In Committee there was a warm welcome for the provisions on sex offender orders, which will provide better protection for vulnerable people against convicted sex offenders. We have also brought police officers under the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was one of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I feel that the Bill now has much to commend it.
	In his introduction to the police reform White Paper published before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said of the police reform process in general:
	Our task is clear. We want to prevent, detect, apprehend and convict the perpetrators of crime. We need and will have a process that enables those undertaking the basic task of protecting our homes, our streets, and our persons, to do the job more effectively. Whether in dramatically slimming down bureaucracy and reassigning tasks in a way that frees up police officers to do their real job more effectively, or in extending what we are calling the 'police family' to engage others in policing, or in adopting more modern techniques: we will bring about change.
	My right hon. Friend concluded
	In the end, it will not be the statistics on crime falling, or targets met for burglary or vehicle crime, but rather the difference felt in the neighbourhood and community itself which will be judge and jury of these reforms. It is time to focus on preventing crime and protecting the victims, and to place the weight of society behind this drive to reform the police.
	I think the Home Secretary was right to be realistic and honest when identifying the judge and jury of the reforms, not all of which require legislation but some of which have been dealt with in the Bill.
	We have set out to continue the reduction in crime, to tackle persistent offenders more effectively, to improve detection and conviction rates, to tackle antisocial behaviour, to reduce the fear of crime, to provide support for victims of crime, and to rebuild confidence in key aspects of the police service. The Bill contains a series of measures enabling us to do all that. It gives us a framework for the promotion of best practice through the introduction of a national policing plan setting outafter consultationthe Government's priorities for policing and how they are to be delivered. There is a three-tier approach to good practice with regulations, codes of practice and guidance to ensure that good operational and management policies for policing can be adopted throughout the service.
	The Bill meets a long-standing demand from many quarters for an Independent Police Complaints Commission, not to harry the police but to ensure that there is public confidence in them, and to ensure that they themselves feel they are being fairly treated if complaints are made against them. That is another important piece of work.
	We have modernised the system for the removal, suspension and disciplining of police officers. In a crucial part of the Bill that we have discussed at length, we have set a framework for the extended police familynot just through the creation of community support officers and accredited community safety officers, but by giving other civilians limited police powers so that police officers are free to perform wider duties. I think that in years to come the role of civilians properly designated to perform escort, detention and investigative work will be seen as an important innovation allowing much more flexibility in the deployment of police officers.

Graham Allen: Those were wise words from the Home Secretary. The Bill, or the process, will indeed be judged on the basis of its impact on communities and neighbourhoods in terms of their experience of policing.
	I hope my right hon. Friend will remember his political roots. I hope that not just the granting of more resources than ever before, and the presence of more police on duty than ever before, but the number of officers visible on the streets and estates of our communities will, at a general election, provide the judge and jury mentioned earlier.

John Denham: My hon. Friend raises a significant point. Visibility is enormously important, but so is visibility with a clear purpose. Through the wider police reform programme, we are anxious to encourage the deployment across all police forces of the national intelligence model. Through that model officers can, in addition to being deployed in visible roles, bring method and focus to their work. Combining those two policing elementsgood intelligence, information and deployment of officers, together with high visibilityis very important indeed.
	Of course, part of the background to the Bill is our substantial investment in police resources. We have reversed the long-term decline in police numbers that was initiated under the previous Conservative Government, and we now have record police numbers, which will rise to 130,000 next spring. Through local authorities, we have also invested substantially in crime and disorder reduction. The work of crime and disorder reduction partnershipsthrough which local authorities and other agencies work alongside the policeis also essential if we are to prove successful in the fight against crime, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime.
	Party political views have been expressed throughout this debate, but in a constructive way, so I shall mention only in passing that crime doubled under the previous Conservative Government, and that police officer numbers fell steadily at the end of their time in office. That is an important consideration. We have committed ourselves to fighting crime in every way necessary. I am convinced that, by underpinning reform of the police service and ensuring that police officers have the support necessary to do the job, we are taking that fight forward in an effective way through the passage of this Bill.

James Paice: I am sorry that the Minister had to resort to party politics at the end of his otherwise well-thought-out and well-presented Third Reading speech, which, until that point, had followed many of the traditional patterns. I cannot but note that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is sitting on the Bench behind meunlike the Home Secretary, who is doubtless touring every media studio, defending his drugs policy against the onslaught that he has unleashed from all those who, like us, recognise it as nonsense.
	As the Minister said, the Bill has had a very long passage, which is nearlybut not quiteover. It must go to the other place, and it remains to be seen what the Lords will make of the considerable number of amendments to it. Although virtually all of them are non-controversial, they will none the less have to be considered, and we will see what happens.
	I am pleased to say that, with a few notable exceptions, the debates on the Billat least, those in which I have participatedhave been a good example of parliamentary scrutiny, through which we have discussed many issues. That contrasts with other, fairly torrid Bill proceedings in which I have participated in my time, both in opposition and in government. The Police Reform Bill has been much more enjoyable and constructive than many others. It is certainly a very much better Bill now than the one that was introduced in the other place many months ago. It is much better because, to be fair, the Government have made several concessions in the light of arguments that we advanced in both Houses.
	I was slightly let down by the Minister's admitting last night that, at least in respect of the Henry VIII clause, he was acknowledging the arithmeticor mathematics, as he described itof the other place. I am sorry that he resorted to that admission; we like to believe that he was influenced by our strength of argument on the issues. Nevertheless, in the spirit of good will, I recognise that the Government have made significant compromises on the Henry VIII clause in particular, and on clause 5, which we discussed earlier this evening.
	Equally, as the Minister will accept, the Opposition have made significant concessions. It is no secret that had we started with a clean sheet of paper, we would not have invented community support officers. We would have preferred to adopt another route, using the special constabulary. However, we recognise the need for considerable assistance for the police through the civilian route, and we have supported CSOs throughout. The only issue has been what powers they should be given, and there, too, we accepted the inevitability that certain powers would be given. I again welcome the commitment that the Minister made on pilot schemes for detention.
	Many of the measures in the Bill have gone through almost without debate. Some hon. Members, and some outsiders too, may say that that shows that Parliament is not working. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is not here today; otherwise he might have something to say on the subject. I contend, however, that the reason why so many issues went through almost, although not totally, undiscussed supports the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that we agreed with 98 per cent. of the Bill from the outset. I am sorry, I should not have called him my hon. Friend, because one of the things that has happened during the passage of the Bill is that he has become my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset.

Norman Baker: Entirely unconnected.

James Paice: I like to believe that the two are connected; my job would not be worth doing if I did not.
	I shall remind the House of some of the issues that have gone through almost unnoticed: the plans for regulations on common use of equipment, the codes of practice, the principle of the independent commission, and the measures supplementing police powers, especially in connection with antisocial behaviour orders. We welcome the improvements to ASBOs; so far they have not been the raging success that the Government initially said they would be. We also welcome the changes to the legislation on sex offenders, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said when we discussed the matter last night, we look forward to the Government's further consideration of the whole panoply of issues relating to sex crime.
	I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is here tonight, and we also strongly welcome the changes to the law on blood tests for people who are unconscious and unable to give consent.
	As the Bill has progressed, the negotiations with the Police Federation on pay and conditions have been going on. The changes were all part of the great reform package that the Home Secretary announced last year, but then he had to go to the Police Federation conference and apologise for the tensions that he had caused with his proposals for alterations to pay and conditions.
	The Opposition have consistently accepted the need for, and wanted to see, improvements in police performance in many areas. The introduction to the White Paper that the Minister quoted in his speech was uncontentious. We entirely agree with the gist of it, about the need to detect and drive down crime, and improve police performance. We can never achieve the ultimate perfection; there is always room for improvement.
	Yes, we have had differences of opinion about how that can be done. We remain of the view that the independence of individual constabularies and chief officers is paramount, and we have sought to protect that throughout the debates on the Bill. We also believe that we need to consider further ways of increasing that independence and enhancing local accountabilitybut that is a debate for another time.
	Like the Minister, I want to thank those who have been so helpful and constructive during the passage of the Bill. I shall identify the outside organisations without which, as the Minister, having been in opposition, well knows, opposition would be even more difficult than it is. I thank the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief Police Officers Staff Association, the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Association of Police Authorities and many individual police officers of all ranks for all the advice and assistance that they have given to the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill.
	I also wish to recognise the constructive approach that the Minister has taken. Despite his occasional lapses into political rhetoricincluding the example of a few moments agohe has addressed the issue with considerable responsibility and command of his subject. I have immense respect for the Minister's command of his subject, and I congratulate him on it. I also recognise and respect the huge contributions made by the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who have driven the issue forward for the Liberal Democrats.
	I also endorse the Minister's comments about the Committee. On our side, we had my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer), as well as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). All of them made significant contributions. I recall at one stage the Minister conjuring up the vision of a CSO attempting to apprehend my hon. Friend the Member for Henley when he was in a condition of disrepute, shall we say, after a good night out. It was one of the lighter moments in Committee.
	Most of the Bill is welcomed by the Opposition. Inevitably, we would prefer that some bits were not in it, and the vexed issue of clause 5 remains. I strongly welcome the Minister's remarks this evening and the amendments that he has proposed to clause 5. We are much closer to solving the outstanding problems and I look forward to a full resolution in the near future. The Minister will understand that, as that resolution has not yet been achieved, I cannot undertake to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight, but I suspect that the opportunity will not arise. However, we would not dream of opposing the Bill, because it contains many measures that we wholly welcome and support. We hope that it will soon pass into legislation, and face the real test of whether all those hopes and expectations can be met by the police and the many civilians who will be brought into the police family. I thank the Minister and the House for the opportunity to consider the Bill. We look forward to seeing it in action.

Kevan Jones: I concur with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: the judge and jury on the success of the Bill will be the people in constituencies such as mine. One of the key issues is not the dry statisticsthe public are now bored with politicians from all parties talking about thosebut the effectiveness of the measures in local communities. Fear of crime is a major issue in my constituency, and many others. The CSOs will do much, judging by the experiment that has been carried out in my constituency, to allay that fear. The extension of powers and in the use of antisocial behaviour orders will make a real difference and will be very welcome.
	I have enjoyed serving in Committee and contributing to debate. I will miss the interventions of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and his quotations from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which the hon. Gentleman appears to have catalogued assiduously over the past few weeks.

George Osborne: I've got more.

Kevan Jones: As the hon. Gentleman's remark shows, the debate has been good-natured. If my questioning of the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has seemed tough at times, I apologise, but I see it as my role to try to pin the Liberal Democrats down to a policy occasionally. I know that that is difficult for them.

James Paice: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Liberal Democrats have managed to have two policies on one issue during the consideration of the Bill? He will recall that on the last day in Committee they tabled an amendment to abolish the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. Last night, in the House of Lords, they voted against abolishing that Act.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for that intervention. On one occasion, Liberal Democrat Members had three different policies on the same day. They argued that the Home Secretary should have more powers, and then that the local authority should have independence. However, we will not dwell on that.
	This is a very good Bill, and it will make a difference in communities throughout the country. I hope that, when CSOs have proved to be electorally popular, they will be enthusiastically endorsed by Liberal Democrat Members. 9.35 pm

Norman Baker: I do not think that the Third Reading debate should be used to pick on Liberal Democrats. That is very unfair, although I must confess that I did not know about the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.
	The Minister can sit easy on his Bench, as we have no intention of dividing the House on Third Reading. The Government Whip will be pleased to know that, too. Those hon. Members enjoying the all-party parliamentary beer group dinner can continue to do so, while those of us assiduously carrying out our parliamentary duties here will miss it this year.
	I thank the Minister for his contribution to our debates, which has usually been good humoured. He has certainly been in command of his subject, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said. I thank Conservative Front Benchers for their constructive approach. It has been useful to work with them and the Government team during the Bill's progress through the House. That shows that hon. Members can behave in a mature way to find common ground where possible, and yet not sacrifice the principles that they hold dear.
	I want to thank the Clerks and the other Officers of the House who have been so helpful throughout our deliberations, and the pressure groups outside the House. I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Poole and North DorsetI apologise, it is the other way around: she is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). There may be two policies on her constituency, but she has been of great assistance on the Bill.
	The Bill has been improved by the parliamentary process. That is a clich, but in this case it is true. The Bill is markedly better as a result of the process, partly because of the force of the arguments deployed, and partly because of the arithmetic involved. Whatever the reason, the result shows that parliamentary scrutiny works. The House can take pride in the fact that the Bill has been improved, and hon. Members collectively can congratulate themselves that a Bill will reach the statute book that we all think will improve matters for policing and for law and order.
	I do not agree with 98 per cent. of the Bill, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) appears to, but I am pleased that the Government have introduced it. My approval rating for it is certainly in the 90s now, which is higher than it was originally.
	As has been said, the Bill contains many good things. I shall not go into detail now, but there is no doubt that much of the Bill will improve matters, nor that it commands support among hon. Members of all three main parties. The sex offenders orders were completely uncontroversial, and they will go along way towards dealing with a matter about which many hon. Members have had grave reservations. In addition, I am pleased with the introduction of the independent police complaints commission. Even if it does not cover Tesco-type police, it will deal with all other officers. It is a welcome innovation that will be support by the public at large. In the long term, it will go a long way towards improving public confidence in the police, as all hon. Members want.
	Few issues remain unresolved for the House of Lords to deal with. I suspect that my colleagues and I will not be entirely satisfied with the proposals on CSOs when the Bill finally receives Royal Assent, but we can probably live with that. Overall, the Bill will improve policing and we are pleased to support it.
	I thank all those hon. Members in the Select Committee on Home Affairs and in Standing Committee A who have helped with the Bill, and those people outside the House who also made a contribution. I am pleased to have played a small role, along with other hon. Members, in producing legislation that will benefit the country at large.
	I have one small gripe with the ministerial team on this Bill, who were reasonably non-partisan in Committee and, to a lesser extent, on the Floor of the House. However, it is very rare that Opposition amendments are accepted, although those often tend to be produced by pressure groups that, equally, produce amendments that the Government are happy to accept. The Government would get more credit if they sometimes accepted Opposition amendments and showed more willingness to agree that the fount of all knowledge may not rest with them but that, occasionally, Opposition Members have good ideas that should be incorporated. If the Government say so, we should not exploit that by claiming massive victories but accept that we have gone forward in a spirit of compromise and good will.
	Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make these comments. I wish the Bill well in the House of Lords.

Angela Browning: I would like to use this opportunity to put on record my thanks and those of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Yeoman, the parents of a young nurse, Charis Yeoman, who was killed by a drunk driver while driving her car. On 6 June 2000, I secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, and the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said that he recognised that there was a loophole in the law, and pledged to close it. The Bill does just that.
	I thank all Home Office Ministers and officials for bringing about the very difficult negotiations between the police force and those in the medical profession. Having met the BMA ethics committee before I brought the matter to the attention of the House, I know how difficult it has been for those two bodies to reach a compromise. However, that has been achieved, and it would be remiss of me not to say thank you. I believe that this will enable the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to bring to justice people who, through their wanton behaviour of drink-driving, kill innocent people such as Charis Yeoman. So, on my constituents' behalf, I thank the Minister that this provision is in the Bill.
	Finally, I hope that when the Bill receives Royal Assent there will not be a long delay in implementing this part of it. Quite a long time can pass before certain parts of a Bill are implemented, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: David Cameron. [Interruption.] I am sorryGeorge Osborne. 9.42 pm

George Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I are often confused for each other. Indeed, he has taken an active part in these debates.
	I should like to take part in this mutual round of self-congratulation. It has been a great pleasure taking part in these debates. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for the way in which he has achieved exactly what he set out to achieve. He is expert at filleting Home Office Bills and proves that opposition is sometimes more effective with a scalpel than a blunderbuss. Indeed, he is teaching that to the rest of my party.
	I also pay tribute to the Minister for the intelligent and gracious way in which he has steered the Bill through its stages. He dealt with some tricky interventionsusually from the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). She raised some tricky legal questions, which he dealt with pretty well.
	I pay special tribute to my Front-Bench team. Being a junior Front-Bench spokesman in any Parliament, whoever is in government, is a pretty difficult and miserable job, and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), as well as the Whip, who is not here at present, did it extremely well. Without them, there would be no proper parliamentary process.
	I have enjoyed sparring with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). I will now throw away my copy of the Second Reading debate of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and the various quotes from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) before he was Prime Minister. I note in passing that it was the right hon. Gentleman who came up with the innovation of the Opposition not voting against major criminal justice legislation, for which he got a lot of credit at the time. So we remember that Act.
	As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is better than when it was first published. The best bits, such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission, have remained largely unaltered, although it is a shame that the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee could not do a bit of empire-building earlier this evening.
	Some new good bits have been added during the debates on the Bill, particularly the provisions that will give social landlords the power to issue antisocial behaviour orders, which will make a difference in my constituency and, I imagine, most others. The worst bits of the Bill have been considerably improved, particularly clause 5 and the powers for CSOs.
	All in all, good things have come from this process, which has been a pleasure to watch. The Bill is still more prescriptive and centralising than I would like, but there we go. I remain sceptical about CSOs, but as the hon. Member for North Durham said, the proof of the pudding will come lateron the streets of our country and we will all watch to see what happens.

Lady Hermon: It is indeed a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne).
	On Second Reading, I warned the Minister that police reform is notoriously difficult to manage. I pay tribute to him for heeding the warning, as did the Home Secretary. Our experience in Northern Ireland has been most unfortunate. When the Patten report was published, the issue was handled with great insensitivity. Reforms were necessary, but they were handled very badly, which resulted in widespread disillusionment among the police force.
	Patten recommended that our regular police force should stand at 7,500 over 10 years, but it has dropped dramatically to below 6,900 in less than two and a half years. I urge the Minister and the Home Secretary to continue their consultations with the rank and file members and the Police Federation throughout the land. It is important to maintain the morale of rank and file members.
	I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to the Minister and his ministerial colleagues. They were very courteous, patient and efficient throughout the progress of the Bill, and I mean that most sincerely. In Committee on 20 June, I asked the Minister a question regarding the human rights training of community support officers. I should like to place on record the fact that he sent me a very full reply within days in which he explained:
	The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that their CSO training will include training on the Human Rights Act.
	He continued:
	The Human Rights Act is important legislation. All CSOs will be required to understand and act within it at all times, in the same professional manner as police officers do.
	I commend him on the speed with which he was able to follow up undertakings to write to hon. Members on that and subsequent occasions, and I am sure that I speak for other hon. Members who served on the Committee.
	The theme of human rights was mentioned by many hon. Members in Committee. After the Minister has had a good night's sleephe has worked very hard this eveningI should like him to reflect on another example from Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The commission advises the Assembly on the adequacy and effectiveness of the laws and practice in relation to the protection of human rights. It staves off a lot of criticism and avoids problems before they end up in legislative form. I commend the good work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Although there are differences about the appointment of its members, it need not be dreaded. Indeed, it could be very helpful in future.
	It would be most remiss of me to omit paying tribute to all hon. Members who served on the Committee. I very much regretted the fact that I had to absent myself on various occasions because of commitments in North Down.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is not present. I did not agree with a word that he said on the vast majority of occasions, but we all found him exceedingly entertaining. I also pay tribute to the officials who were also involved in the Committee. They were exceedingly kind and helpful to me when I brought various drafting queries to their attention.
	May I leave the Minister or his officials with a little query? I hope that he will answer a question, and I am sure that he will write to me by tomorrow. This evening, we voted through Government amendment No. 52, which amended paragraph 6(1) of schedule 1. I shall read, at this late hour, paragraph 6(1) as we have amended it:
	Section 80 shall become subsection (1) of that section, and in that section, after that subsection, there shall be inserted.
	I look forward to the Minister's response to and interpretation of that little amendment that we have voted through this evening.
	I commend the Bill to the House. There is much to be said for the police reforms that have been introduced. I repeat my plea that the Government carry the rank and file with them through consultation.

Angela Watkinson: I am pleased to add my support to the broad cross-party support that the Bill has received. In a way, it is a shame that I am going to concentrate on the detention powers of community support officers, which has been the most controversial element of the Bill. As the Minister has said, however, the matter has been well rehearsed in Standing Committee but not on the Floor of the House.
	The Metropolitan police is one of the few forces to have supported this move. In a briefing note to the Home Affairs Committee, it described a hypothetical situation in which a community support officer has detained someone who refuses to give their personal details:
	He tells the offender they must wait there with him until a police officer arrives, and puts in a call on his radio for a police officer to join him.
	I venture to suggest that that would be a very good moment for the suspect to make his escape. It continues:
	The police dispatcher, knowing that having a person detained in a public place is a challenging situation with potential for disorder, gives the call priority and an officer arrives within a few minutes.
	A miracle indeed. If there were enough police officers available to respond so quickly, CSOs would not be needed. It continues:
	Perhaps the offender objects to being detained and tries to leave . . . The CSO uses his or her training in the minimum use of force to prevent this, while, at the same time, putting in a further radio call to emphasise the urgency.
	That is pure fantasy. It would be funny if it were not so serious. I wonder whether the author of the briefing document has ever been on the streets.
	The detention of an unco-operative person is a difficult and possibly dangerous task. Will CSOs be required to inform the person that their powers of detention are limited to 30 minutes? What will happen on the 31st minute if a real constable has not attended the scene in time to make an arrest? Will it be necessary to let the suspect go? If so, the credibility of CSOs will be undermined in no time. What will happen if the CSO is assaulted or injured, as seems highly probable?
	The number of applications to the Metropolitan police from people wanting to be CSOs has been unexpectedly high, but the main reason given for not wanting to be a police officer is very worryingthey think that the job is too dangerous, and they do not want the responsibility. How, I wonder, will they cope?
	There is also a serious issue of recognition. The uniformed constable is easily recognised and impersonation of a police officer is an offence. CSOs would, therefore, need a uniform that is easily distinguishable from that of a proper police officer. The public would need to know exactly what powers were invested in whom. I understand that the original plan for the Metropolitan police was to give them a uniform that was almost the same as, or barely distinguishable from, a police officer's uniform. I was reassured this week that they will wear a light blue uniform, and that they will therefore be easily distinguishable.
	In some areas, however, including Upminster in the London borough of Havering, community wardens are already employed by the council. They work in co-operation with the police, providing local intelligence and information. They are easily recognisable and nobody confuses them with the police. The introduction of yet another type of warden would cause confusion among members of the public.
	In evidence to the Select Committee, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities all raised their concerns about CSOs. I share those concerns. The potential for problems with CSOs in dangerous and difficult situations is obvious, and the operational gain from four fully trained constables compared to six CSOs is enormous.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Watkinson: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
	I have been assured by the Prime Minister at Question Time and by the Minister in Select Committee that CSOs will not be imposed. However, the enthusiasm that the Prime Minister has subsequently shown for CSOs has made me less sure about the proposed funding arrangements. If the adoption of CSOs is to be truly optional, no form of ring-fenced funding should be used to penalise those police authorities that choose not to adopt them. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me and police authorities on that particular point in his summing up. The Metropolitan police is already busy recruiting CSOs.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Watkinson: I am afraid that I do not have the time.
	The alarming rise in street and gun crime has added yet more urgent priorities to the tasks of the Metropolitan police. It is unable to respond to calls from the public about the youth disturbances, vandalism and graffiti that are low-level crime in police terms, but affect very seriously the quality of life of law-abiding people. The answer is not CSOsit is more police constables. I would like the status of community policing to be raised within police forces with the reintroduction of beat policing, which my constituents ask for continually.
	The Metropolitan police in outer London boroughs also suffer from abstraction of their already inadequate numbers because of the need to help to police high-profile events in central London. That seriously affects the service to the public in constituencies, such as Upminster, where a visible uniformed presence cannot be sustained. Again, the answer is not CSOsit is more police constables.
	To stem the tide of rising crime, we need police forces that new recruits want to join and in which experienced officers want to stay. Morale was holed below the waterline by the accusation in the Macpherson report that the police were institutionally racistan accusation that was deeply offensive to the vast majority of officers. If the police are to move forward and tackle the enormous increase in violent and drug-related crime, they need the confidence of the public and the backing of the criminal justice system and the Government. The Bill, in its amended form, will help them to do just that.

Vernon Coaker: I briefly wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Bill. I have followed it from afar and listened to one or two of the debates over the past couple of days. As he knows, the particular problem that I always raise is antisocial behaviour. Will he therefore undertake to keep under review the measures in the Bill that deal with that problem and ensure that we enforce the new provisions so that they work properly?

John Denham: With the leave of the House, I am pleased to say that we want to ensure that the new antisocial behaviour order provisions work effectively. To coincide with the commencement of the measures, we will introduce new guidance. I hope that it will also simplify procedures.
	I will not attempt to reply to the debate, but I am grateful to those hon. Members who thought that I was in command of my brief. This is the appropriate moment to thank my officials. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will know, the difference between giving and not giving the impression that one is in control of one's brief depends largely on the work of the officials who keep us informed before our debates.
	I also wish to thank and pay tribute to the men and women who work in the police service. The debate is about them. They do a fantastic job, and we must be judged on whether the measures that we have agreed will help them to do their vital work in communities throughout the country in the weeks and months to come.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

World Summit on Sustainable Development and Aid for Poverty Diseases

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7727/2/02, draft Council Conclusions for the preparation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and No. 6863/02, draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on aid for poverty diseases (HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis) in developing countries; and welcomes the Government's approach to the World Summit and to discussions on differential pricing of medicines and other key issues.[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Genetically Modified Food and Feed

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 11576/01, draft Council Regulation on genetically modified food and feed and No. 11496/01, draft Council Regulation on the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms; and supports the Government's aim of securing practical, proportionate and enforceable legislation that also recognises the external impact, including that on developing countries.[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order [3 July],

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 200203 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 200203 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.[Joan Ryan.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 17 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft State Pension Credit Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

Insolvency

That the draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

Family Law

That the draft Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

Family Law

That the draft Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

Village Halls

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Joan Ryan.]

Matthew Taylor: I am delighted to have the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. I have taken part in many such debates at two or three in the morning, but procedures have changed and tonight I cut short a dinner with my good friends, Martin and Miranda Thomas, because I was told that Third Reading would finish 45 minutes ago. Life never quite works out as planned.
	The issue is important to Cornwall and other rural areas. Bugle village hall was built by volunteers at the end of world war one to commemorate those who died in the war. It is extremely well used. Everything from the panto, the Darby and Joan club, the toddlers group and bingo take place there, but all improvements are carried out by voluntary labour. It now needs a disabled toilet and disabled access, which alone will cost 20,000. The hall struggles to find even a small proportion of that in what is one of the poorest communities in Cornwall, which is itself one of the poorest communities in the country.
	Penwithick has spent five or six years putting together fundraising events locally to get a community centre, but it cannot get the land because land prices have taken off in the past few years. The project has huge support. The community has held car boot sales, jumbles, sponsored swims and so on. It has the support of the local community council and St. Austell college, but the various funding organisations will not provide the funding for land so it is unable to proceed.
	Village halls in Cornwall and across Britain are facing a crisis in funding that threatens their continued existence. Traditional sources of funding have gradually been eroded. Funding bodies that offered assistance have now withdrawn or changed the basis of their support in ways that create real difficulty for many vital institutions. I have primarily been alerted to the issues by Cornwall rural community council, which has done extensive work researching the situation in Cornwall. My concerns are also shared by Action with Communities in Rural England, the national body representing the rural community councils, which has done extensive research on the problem nationally.
	I raised the problem with the former Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 28 May. My concerns have been transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I await a reply. However, I am sure that the Minister will respond to the issues tonight.

John Burnett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. It would be worth his knowing that in Devonshire some 60 halls are waiting, in vain it seems, for 11 million of assistance, which they are finding it impossible to get.

Matthew Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend. In a moment I will give the House some figures about Cornwall that will make a similar point.
	I know that the Countryside Commission put out a press release today about some of its sources of funding, and I shall return to that later, but there is one issue that I want to pre-empt. The press release suggests that there has been a substantial increase in the number of village halls. That is purely a statistical change. It is not that there are more halls; it is only that the commission is including more buildings as halls. Sadly, we are not getting more halls. A great many are under threat of closure and some are in the process of closing.
	To respond to my hon. Friend's point, the extensive village halls survey by the Cornwall rural community council shows that about 10 million of investment is required simply to bring village halls up to present day standards. We are talking not about expansion, great improvements or new services but about basics such as toilets that work, kitchens that meet current hygiene standards and, perhaps most fundamentally, roofs that do not leak. Approximately 6 million of that work is classed as urgent, and if the remaining 4 million of work does not take place, much of it will become urgent.
	In addition to the rural community council research, we have the results of a similar survey conducted in 1998 by the Cornish millennium projects, which found that 13 million of investment was needed. Since then, 3 million of investment has come from that fund. That suggests that the more recent research is pretty accurate.

Norman Lamb: I have received similar representations from the Norfolk rural community council and from ACRE. Is my hon. Friend aware that, as well as the costs that he has mentioned, village halls face the 2004 implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Its provisions on access to public places are creating additional concern because they come with a substantial price tag that many village halls simply will not be able to meet.

Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to raise similar concerns.
	I do not want this debate to be only about Cornwall. If we take the figures for Cornwall and Devon and look at the ACRE research, we can extrapolate a figure of some 400 million of necessary capital investment. No one pretends that it is all needed overnight, and of course local fund-raising committees will run their jumble sales and bring-and-buy sales and access local funding. However, much of that funding cannot be put together without substantive Government support.
	We should not forget that village halls are worth protecting as an asset. Their total value is estimated at over 1 billion. The average lifespan is already over 50 years and more than half are over 60 years old. As my hon. Friend suggested, current facilities are inadequate for modern use. Nationally, annual capital investment of roughly 20 million is required to cover replacement costs and another 20 million is needed to meet the rising demand for quality in facilities. That is on top of the figure of 400 million that I have already given for the backlog of urgent fundamental repairs to the structure of the buildings.
	The problem, and the reason that I bring the matter to the House, is that the money available to village halls is being eroded just as their age is making the work far more urgent. That has not happened only under the present Government; it has been a process over many years. It reflects cuts in funding, some of which perhaps were necessary, but the overall effect has been to store up problems in an ageing asset. Many halls were built after the first and second world wars and now need that major capital investment, but there is no funding for it.

Annette Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a tremendous urgency about the situation? It affects the fabric of social life and the sustainability of village life. With the funds drying up at such a critical point, we need a package quickly, not in the next 10 years.

Matthew Taylor: For many village halls, the need is immediate. If communities cannot raise 50,000 or 100,000 to replace the roof, their only option is to allow the village hall to close. Once closed, it will not reopen. We all know the truth of that. The building will rapidly deteriorate and in most cases it will be sold.
	I shall deal briefly with the sources of funding. Local authority funding to village halls in England has remained static at just over 5 million annually between 1981 and 2000. By definition, that is a significant decrease in the real value of that funding. At the same time, legislative requirements on health and safety and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Lamb) mentioned, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 must be met.
	Almost half the county councils16 of themprovide no funding at all. It is not and never has been a statutory duty, and as councils have had to focus on their statutory duties in respect of education, social services and so on, we all know that whichever parties have been running local authorities, many non-statutory duties have been drastically cut or have come to an end. The same is happening in the district and unitary authorities. The relevant figures are given in the ACRE Status of Funding for Village Halls report of January 2002.
	Many local communities have sought national lottery funding. The millennium grants were a significant source of funding, but they have come to an end. The lottery's community fund national grant aid, which might have provided some funding, is coming down. Its grants strategy, as is the case generally, is focused on limited geographical areas or smaller amounts aimed at the delivery of specific functions or feasibility studies on expanding services. However, my concern is not the extension of services provided in village halls. I am worried about the existing structure or the loss of that structure, and the statutory requirements that must be met. Grants for that are no longer available from the community fund.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for kindly agreeing to allow me to intervene.
	The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have been contacted by Bedfordshire Rural Communities Charity. We look after some 100 village hall committees in Bedfordshire. The charity tells me that some 31 million was available a few years ago, and now only 13 million is available. Is the hon. Gentleman reassuredI am not sure that I amby a recent letter that I received from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which I have shown to the Minister? The letter tells me:
	Distributors confirmed that they were now finalising details on a trial scheme for the funding of multi-purpose community facilities which would be applicant-friendly with a single front door application system.
	Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that that may mean that village halls have some priority in that funding, or is he confused by the possibility that that wonderful single front door application system might conceal the fact that funding for village halls is rather less than it used to be?

Matthew Taylor: It is undoubtedly true that funding for village halls is somewhat less than it used to be. If we can bring funding schemes together and have a single front doorthere has been such a scheme in the west midlandsit may be easier for the village hall committee to access it. That would be good news. However, if the money is not available once one goes through the door, it will not get the building work done.
	The national village halls grants scheme was operated by the old Rural Development Commission. I was one of those who regretted the loss of the Rural Development Commission, which had a targeted role that worked extremely well in support of rural communities. It was replaced by the Countryside Agency and the national village halls grants scheme was axed. It has been replaced by community service grants, but those limit funding improvements to facilities that allow new services to be introduced, which is great in its own right, but does nothing to keep the hall open if the roof is falling in. That fund is down to 600,000, which is a drop in the ocean, compared with the sum that is needed. There is also a loans fund, which is even smallerjust 250,000 has been given outbut it attracts an 8 per cent. interest rate. For an agency tasked with strengthening rural communities, that is not much of a solution for anybody.

Andrew George: On funding for the future of village halls, I can speak from experience, having worked in that area in the period immediately before I was elected. Does my hon. Friend agree that over a period of years a fad has developed among grant schemes that are supported by Government or have Government involvement whereby they support not established, much appreciated services that people know and love, but only new innovationsand that only on the basis of being the funding of last resort.

Matthew Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is extremely experienced in this area, having worked with Cornwall rural community council in the past. I know that he shares my concern that there has been a great move away from the fundamental capital funding that is needed to keep halls open when they are most in need of it.
	I have let several hon. Members intervene, and I hope that they accept that I cannot let any more do so. I hope that the Minister will allow me an extra minute or two to make up for the time that I lost through interventions.

Elliot Morley: Injury time.

Matthew Taylor: I thank the Minister for that.
	Another problem with the Countryside Agency is its rather rigid definition of servicesit will fund only services, and that does not include the basic structure of the hall. I know of a community in Cornwall in the next-door constituency to mine. It has a population of 220. They have managed to secure the shell of the building, but the Countryside Commission will not allow them to get it into a state to operate as a village hall because that is not in itself a service. That is nonsense; it is juggling with words.
	Very few other sources of grant are available. The South West of England regional development agency provides no funding for village halls unless they can illustrate economic outputsso they could put in a suite of computers for training, but could not repair the roof to keep the computers in working order. That is despite the fact that, as the rural community council survey shows, village halls can demonstrate that there are genuine economic outputs as a result of their basic day-to-day work, not least through the staff who are employed in helping to run them. Yet the RDA is simply unwilling to recognise that contribution, and this form of support from the Countryside Agency does not exist. European funding and other economic development funding is extremely hard to access for such basic services. In Cornwall, funding is wrapped into objective 1, which has not made a single grant to village halls on the ground that they do not fall within the economic development criteria with which objective 1 is charged.
	These halls have scores of fundamental uses within the local community. One hall picked at random from the Cornwall survey had 72 separate uses, including sports, arts, cultural events, community events and meetings, lunch clubs, post offices, polling stations, wedding receptions, school events, Women's Institute events, farmers' markets, conferences, doctors' surgeries, blood transfusion services, police liaison, religious services and private hire. The list goes on, but time does not allow. The fundamental fact is that for many rural communities village halls are not a luxurythey are essential to their well-being. The venues create a valuable sense of community and help to prevent rural communities from being isolated.
	If the buildings are allowed to fall into ruin, there is little chance of their being replaced. Lottery funding has introduced a regime whereby capital is readily available for most things, but running costs are not. Yet in the case that we are considering, capital is needed but not available. That is ironic. The village hall's basic revenue costs are next to nothing because it is run by volunteers, but it finds it almost impossible to gain access to the capital funding that it needs.
	The problem is not new and, in some ways, the Minister is in the difficult position of having to catch up and resolve a funding difficulty that has been allowed to grow for far too long, but is now urgent. The Action with Communities in Rural England report, the Cornwall rural community council report and the wide support from hon. Members show that the problem requires immediate action. Rural Members of any party from any part of the country express the same anxieties.
	I do not want village halls in my constituency to close, but I cannot tell them where they can find the money that they need. I hope that the Minister can do that. 10.20 pm

Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on securing the debate and making an important case about the role of village halls and community centres. The Government acknowledge that they are often the hubs of village life. We understand their importance and the hon. Gentleman's case.
	I read the Cornwall village hall survey with interest. It contained much that is important for all rural Members to note. Although it confirms the importance of village halls, the survey also stated that many are not achieving their potential as community resources. For example, it mentioned that they are often under-utilised, especially during the day.

Matthew Taylor: Because of poor facilities.

Elliot Morley: There are several reasons that we need to consider. The report provides important lessons, and I have a great deal of respect for ACRE and its work. We give its submissions careful attention.
	We have supported the development of active communities, and village halls provide a location for a range of community services and activities. They are generally eligible for some funding towards necessary improvements or modifications. The available evidence shows an increase in village halls and meeting places, as reported in the Countryside Agency's rural services survey in 2000. It shows that 85 per cent. of parishes had such a facility in 2000, compared with 72 per cent. in 1997. That shows the impact of lottery money. It also demonstrates that community centres and village halls have increased rapidly in the past few years.

Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman has squeezed me, but as it is his Adjournment debate, I shall give way.

Matthew Taylor: I am sure that the Minister believes that the statistics that he cited show an increase in halls. I ask him to query that, because the definition has changed to include other community centres. If the Minister asks his officials after the debate, I am sure that they will confirm that. I do not want to make a political point, I simply want him to check afterwards.

Elliot Morley: I agree, but it is important that communities have a centre, whether it is a hall or a community centre. The facility rather than its exact definition is important. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees. That does not detract from the fact that the survey shows that village halls and meeting places are increasing. That is due to a substantial increase in the money that has been made available.
	We are discussing the problems. There is a need to improve data collection and consider the funding for village halls to establish need. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we are considering a capital issue. In many cases, it is easier to support through capital rather than through running costs.
	I live in a village, where support from the town council and the local council meant that it could buy a redundant school and convert it into a village hall. That was achieved mainly through activities in the community. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that people should depend on outside funding. There is a role for active communities in raising money, but that is not to say that there should be no such support. In recent years, there has been a big increase because of the lottery. In the 1980s, about 10 million was spent, compared with about 50 million at the peak in the mid-1990s. There has been a slight fall, but the most recent figure that I have, which is for 2000, is 31.4 million.

John Burnett: Will the Minister give way very quickly?

Elliot Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am afraid that I cannot.
	That is a significant increase. Indeed, ACRE's report on the financing of village halls, which I have in front of me, shows that the increase in the funds made available in the past few years has been dramatic.

John Burnett: It has dried up.

Elliot Morley: It has fallen back, but the suggestion that it has dried up is misleading. The 2000 figures are six times greater than those for the beginning of the 1990s, which bumped along at a very low level. I commend the report to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and suggest that he look at the situation that it describes. Although I am not saying that no issues are involved, anyone seeking to make a big case about the fact that there has been a gigantic increase in funding that has fallen back a bit in comparison with very low funding for very long periods should put the matter in perspective. Record sums have been going in in comparatively recent times and the number of facilities for villages has increased since 1997.
	Those are the figures that we have. As the hon. Gentleman said, the village halls loans fund is available for use and is administered by ACRE on behalf of the Countryside Agency. The fund can provide loans towards capital improvements such as maintenance, extensions or rebuilding costs. The Countryside Agency can also offer assistance through the community service grants scheme, which he mentioned. That assistance is delivered through the vital villages programme and can help to fund an alteration or extension of a village hall or other community building where it will provide a new or extended service to the community.
	The community fund, a lottery distribution body that distributes lottery funds on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is the main source of funding for village halls, and accounts for the significant increase in recent years. That funding alone accounts for about 18 million of the 31.4 million that was available in 2000. Other sources of public funding include local authorities, regional development agencies and the Sports Council.
	I accept that there are caveats. Of course, the criteria must be met and the process depends very much on the nature of the application. However, that is all part of community activity and of local communities determining priorities and activities in the halls and centres where those activities are focused. None the less, considerable funds are still available. Even though there has been a decline in lottery money, the amount provided is still a considerable improvement on what was given in the past.
	There has been a meeting with the DCMS. Indeed, it was dealt with in the letter cited by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt); I accept that the use of language was interesting. The meeting was held to consider the detail of the analysis provided by ACRE in relation to the 50 million shortfallor, rather, the amount that it has identified as being needed for modernisation and repairs. There is a feeling inside the DCMS and among lottery fund providers that, although they do not dispute the justification for funding, repairs and maintenance, especially on large capital programmes, the 50 million figure needs to be broken down. There needs to be some examination of how the figures have been arrived at, so that we can have a more accurate picture of the needs of village halls and communities.
	In conclusion, there is no disagreement in the Government with the case made by hon. Members about the importance of village halls, community centres and community meeting places. Such places are a focus and hub for communities and we want to support them. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is sometimes easy to overstate the case about a fall-back on what has been a very large increase in the funds available. A number of Government bodies and Departments are involved in relation to the lottery providers and distributors, and they include DEFRA in respect of its various rural action programmes. It is not unreasonable that they need to discuss with ACRE and other interested bodies the scale of the problem and decide what action can be taken to deal with the matter through a partnership approach that recognises that the strength of the facilities is measured by the strength of the support that they have in communities in making them work and ensuring that they are part of the community and a focus for community activities.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Deferred Divisions
	  
	Investigatory Powers

That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 194.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Investigatory Powers

That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance: Code of Practice) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 194.

Question accordingly agreed to.